Replies

I repeat what I said earlier--a movement without a leader has no power to change anything. That is one of the clearest lessons of history.

Who, then, would you list as THE leader of the Revolution?

I think more important than the leader is the IDEA...or the IDEAL...being aimed for. If the leader is the all-important thing, without him or her the movement falls apart. If the IDEA or GOAL is the most important thing, then as long as all members have the same goal and are working toward it, the movement continues.

If Renew[ing] America depends upon Alan Keyes, then if (heaven forbid) he were killed in a plane crash tomorrow, our country is doomed. If it depends solely on returning to the ideas and ideals of our Founding Fathers, THOSE are the basis of the movement, not who says what about them.

My other point, you will call "bashing", but before you dismiss it as such, please hear me out. The other problem with Alan Keyes as leader is that he offends many people - note Joe Brower's post above in which he says "Some people think he's overbearing, condescending, whatever. Well grow a skin." You can see in the early posts on this thread that even Symix - and Dr. Keyes has no greater fan than Symix! - thought on the first viewing that Dr. Keyes was rude to his guest on the show last night.

Symix later changed his mind & said his first impression was incorrect, but you know from reading these threads that others have gotten the same impression - and for some, the first impression is the one they carry forever.

I know that no one person can appeal to everyone, but beginning a movement with someone who impresses many as rude, condescending, or arrogant is dooming that movement to failure.

Better, IMHO, to tie the movement to IDEAS, or to SEVERAL leaders, than to one man.

Most everything you wrote in your post #140 I totally agree with.

It is always about the principles...and those ideals which transcend personalities and even eras.

But it also always about people too...imperfect people. As much as we idealize the founders, for example, they were all flawed. They knew that themselves, and admitted it freely.

In fact, they knew it so well that they set up a system of separation of powers that guaranteed that as long as the Constitution stood, no single man, or any small clique of men, could gain and hold more power than was wise or healthy.

But despite all of that, we do have a system that is carried forward by individuals. For example, under our system, the President IS the Executive, in his person an entire branch of government.

So, in brief, yes, I agree that it is the ideals and the principles that come first...Alan himself has said the same thing more times than I can count. But we need scores of individuals who actually believe in the founding principles enough to act on them to be raised up in the months and years ahead.

Alan is just one of them...but a very capable one.

But if you sincerely share this worldview with Alan, and I believe you do, I just don't understand why you dislike him so much.

I think more important than the leader is the IDEA...or the IDEAL...being aimed for. ... Better, IMHO, to tie the movement to IDEAS, or to SEVERAL leaders, than to one man.

I agree 100%. Upon reviewing the site in more detail, I also agree that there is far too much self-promotion on the part of Mr. Keyes, as worthy an individual as he may be. While I greatly admire the man, he needs to tone it down, for the good of the cause. As Ronald Reagan stated (and I believe he was paraphrasing Benjamin Jowett), "You can get a lot done when no one cares who gets the credit".

The thing I like about Alan Keyes is that he is the ONLY guy in the public eye right now who has the cajones to stand unflinchingly on the principles of the founding fathers. As a strict Constitutionalist myself, I see how 90% of our existing government has no legal mandate. It is out of control. And a return to the principles that created the great American Freedom Experiment is what will save our Republic from it's current slide into immoral empire.

As for his being rude, I simply chalk that up to being a talk show, one of the reasons I don't especially like watching the things. Ever notice how it's OK for lefties to be arrogant and confrontational, but when a conservative does it, there's all this finger-wagging? This is politics, folks, and politics is the conduct of war by other means, and, as David Horowitz so bluntly puts it, in war, if one side is shooting and the other is not, the side that is not is soon dead. It is time to bring the battle to the enemy, and being "nice guys" has obviously not worked too well over the last 60+ years. I am sure that men like Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, et al, were all deemed "rude" and "too confrontational" in their day. On the other hand, a man with the right personality can indeed be positive and uplifting, and still get the job done. I again point to Ronald Reagan as an example of this. Finding the balance is the key, no pun intended.

So again, this effort needs to focus more on it's principles and much less on the man. It is good and necessary to have a leader, but not one who has positioned him or her self to be indispensable . A true grassroots effort would be a Hydra. That truth was fundamental to the success of the first American Revolution, and is just as valid today.

We must win this. Failure is not an option.