Transcript of Alan Keyes CPAC Interview

IronJack: Good morning. IronJack and The Shrew here at the Conservative Political Action Conference Washington D.C. year 2002, speaking today with a gentleman known very well to Free Republic, Dr. Alan Keyes.

The Shrew: We really appreciate you being here. You know how much support you've had from Free Republic over the years. You've gotten staff and supporters and lots of people have been backing you.

Keyes: Hahaha, when I get a chance! I love it. Uh, and I have appreciated it over the years, that not only the activism and the dedication of FReepers, cause these are folks who have stood forward and been the backbone of my campaign and have stood forward to help during the Clinton years to dramatize the harm that he was doing to the country, uh, it's taken a lot of courage and I believe that it's been an important contributing factor to the kind of results we've seen in helping to turn that situation around some. So …

The Shrew: For you as you've been a, on a media pundit circuit and gone in and, and helped correct the perception of conservatives and provided conservative issues and views, now you have your own show. How is that going for you? Are you enjoying it? Is it, congratulations by the way, it's a huge accomplishment to some degree …

Keyes: no, no, no, the accomplishment will be if people watch the show. Hahahaha

Keyes: I think that the very important thing is, I have insisted, and we're moving forward in a way that will have integrity, that will correspond to the conservative priorities and principles and values that I believe in. I think that it was very important to me in going into this to make sure that the program was going to basically be a vehicle to get across to the American people in a common sense way the views and principles of conservatism in a context where I'm meeting challengers and taking on comers, and we'll see where it goes because I believe that our case is so strong that we can face the strongest opponent, Dershowitz, whoever it might be on any issue, and we'll make sense.

The Shrew: Tell us about the sweater. That's one of the things that's generated a lot of comments …

Keyes: Well, let's …, what about the sweater? I was really surprised that such a fuss was made over the sweater. The idea of changing from the jacket to the sweater was simply in order to convey what I hope will be the feeling of the (inaudible) discussion. We have so many discussions on TV that are all about trying to pit people against each other and generate a whole lot of noisy, opinionated exchanges. That segment will reflect the diversity of viewpoints, but the idea is that people should be talking to each other, listening, trying to see the thread of logic and with a willingness to acknowledge when logic isn't there. So, if you're not making sense, a willingness to begin to see that. So I wanted something that would kind of reflect the feeling of informality. That's why we don't have people wearing coats and ties and things like this.

IronJack: One of the things that I was going to say is that that segment has a different format in appearances, a different segment in how you interact with the speakers. It's very different across the board.

Keyes: It also, by the way, has been in some ways I guess the segment that, because it's uncharacteristic of the way that particularly cable news television has approached these discussions, where you just bring on regular folks and see what they believe. And so there's a question that I hope will be answered in a positive way because I think it's very important to highlight the common sense of our people, to get back to an understanding that when we confront challenging issues, America is about people applying their common sense. It's not about a bunch of sheep looking for some experts who are going to tell them what to think.

IronJack: Now that was one of the points I think you made in your address a few minutes ago was that we don't need experts. We don't need experts to tell us how to dress. We don't need experts to tell us how to eat. We don't need the experts to tell us how to believe. That's a misconception and it's a way of, of appointing a few elitist shepherds because that way you don't have to own the sheep.

Keyes: Right. The very idea undermines the confidence people need for real self- government. If you're waiting for somebody to tell you what to think, then you're not somebody who is going to be able to cast a vote, make a decision, involve yourself, in political life in a way that really reflects your own interest, your own faith, your own values. And …

IronJack: Now, what does it take to do that? First of all it's going to take some kind of confidence, you've got to believe in yourself.

Keyes: I think it takes a sense of integrity. That's why I always include faith because it requires that you have an understanding of who you are.

Keyes: What you base your own sense of integrity on. And without that kind of a moral background, it seems to me you get lost. You're like a ship with no anchor or somebody who's trying to navigate without any idea of where the North Star is.

IronJack: And that mentality, that absence, that vacuum lends itself very well to the liberal mentality, which is tell me what to do, tell me where to go …

Keyes: It lends itself to passivity and it's the opposite, I think, of the kind of active responsible thinking that is characteristic of the conservative mind. The liberal mind is a consumer. Alright? It just sits back and is shaped by forces around it. And I think that's also a reflection of the liberal concept of our human nature. That we're like corks bobbing on the waves of our passions and so we have to give in to them and our forces in society and so we're determined by class structures and government power. That is not the understanding of our humanity that's at the heart of conservatism. Conservatism says that we have a foundation to stand on, of our own integrity, of individual responsibility, and that there is in the world a basis for our ability to make proper and correct free choices between the alternatives that are presented to us in a responsible way. We're not just sheep. We're not just followers. We're not just consumers. We're shaping the destiny of our community.

Keyes: Well, I believe ultimately that moral basis comes from a willingness to acknowledge, as our founders did, that we live in a world fashioned by our creator, with laws and principles that he has put in place that sanction our freedom and our dignity, and at the same time give rise to a sense of what our responsibilities are toward one another and toward our society. I think in that framework of a willingness to acknowledge the power of God as higher than our own will, we actually discover the basis for our own freedom.

The Shrew: In the course of the 2000 election, when you were running for President, you got 1.2 million votes in the election. Free Republic had lots of supporters, lots of impact on it, and right now what's happening on Free Republic in regards to your editorials and your show is, there's … we're generating thousands and thousands of not just hits, but actual responses and debate about your show.

The Shrew: And, and about you. One of the quotes … Can I read a quote to you and ask you to verify it?

The Shrew: "The burning question in my mind …", this is from you in a New York Times Magazine interview... "… the burning question in my mind for Bush is that on September 11 we witnessed the most egregious failure of America's national security system in our history. Why has no one been held accountable for that failure in your administration?"

Keyes: It sure is. Yes. I don't believe that we can properly face the challenge to our national security until we have gotten a clear answer as to what went wrong on September 11. Something did go wrong.

Keyes: The notion, the notion that we were struck by terrorists and it's inevitable that they have this kind of success! We can't accept this! That means we're all sitting ducks and we might as well give up spending all these billions. If we spend not billions, but hundreds of billions of dollars on a national security establishment, and at the end of the day, all our intelligence, all our satellites, all the money we spend can't keep the Pentagon from being the subject of attack by our enemies?

Keyes: This is a problem, okay? And we're not being honest with ourselves if we're not willing to hold accountable the government. This is regardless of administration, regardless of administration.

IronJack: Is it simplistic to blame Bill Clinton? Is it simplistic to blame his failure to maintain a viable intelligence committee?

Keyes: I don't know. The problem I have, and this is actually a question that's also obviously addressed to the Congress, how do we know what we ought to be doing right now? I think that the September 11 attack was the consequence of an assault on and erosion of our national security, particularly our intelligence apparatus, that has been going on off and on for decades. You go back to the Carter administration. You will find them blasting away and gutting our U.N. intelligence capabilities. You'll see during the Reagan years an effort to rebuild it fighting every step of the way against Democrats and other liberals in the Congress, right? Then you will come to the Clinton years which took up the same assault on our basic national security structure that we saw during the course of the Carter years and made it far worse as we all know. And then we come to the Bush years and, I've got to tell you, looking at the early months of the administration I saw a lot of talk about how we needed to cut this and restructure that.

Keyes: believe that what we should have been talking about from the word go, and I said this during the campaign was how we remedy the incredible damage that has been done to our national security.

Keyes: during the Clinton years. And so it wasn't until September 11 that we finally got this focus. Why did we wait?

Keyes: I don't know, a sudden epiphany on part of many people, but I have to tell you, it seems to me we won't know on the part of who or what until we start to take a good hard look at the background of these events and get some answers as to how we got into the shape we were in and why we weren't moving with expedition to do something about it. And I think that's something Congress needs to look at. How do we know what we should do to fight terrorism in the future if we haven't even gotten a clear idea of what went wrong on September 11 that let these people inflict such a blow on us, a coordinate attack . Remember what happened, a coordinated attack,

Keyes: People have been sitting around in this country doing their junk for several years some of them. And there was, there were obvious problems with coordination among our intelligence agencies and things of this kind. We need to get to the bottom of it and make sure that it is remedied.

IronJack: Aside from that lapse, do you think that President Bush and his administration are pursuing the war on terrorism with the proper vigor?

Keyes: I think we have to be all of us real careful when we're dealing with questions like that. The worst thing you can do is second guess people who are standing on the firing line while they're trying to fight people who want to kill you.

Keyes: I think we oughtn't to be distracting them from that, eh, very necessary effort with our kibitzing. Um, I think we can all of us have our views about what it takes to fight terrorists. I certainly express mine, but it seems to me that the response we made in Afghanistan was obviously necessary. We gotta put nations on notice. You help these people, you support them, you get in bed with them, and we're going to smack you down. And I think we need to serve notice and have effectively served notice with our work in Afghanistan on every country in the world. And we do need to follow up and look at them and say "Okay, you better back off or you'll be next!".

Keyes: The other thing I think personally we need to be sure of, I said it in my talk today, is that we have these people surely salted around the world, including at the moment probably Osama Bin Laden himself.

Keyes: Who knows where they are? I think they're in countries all over place including Europe because we know from the runup to this terrible terrorist episode that those cells were everywhere. They were in Germany, they were in France, they were in …

Keyes: And don't tell me that they aren't still there. We need to be taking effective action through our intelligence apparatus to identify who these people are and when we find them, we need to get them before they move. Not wait til they strike, not apprehend them after they've killed our people, but get to them and eliminate them before they move. And I think that that's essential.

The Shrew: One of the hottest trouble spots in the world right now is South Asia and you were in the Reagan administration weren't you an envoy in India?

Keyes: Well, I was a Consular Officer in Bombay. Yeah, I served a year and a half when I was first starting my career.

The Shrew: Do you have any insight into that part of the world that we should, our listeners should hear, about what we should be doing with Pakistan and India? I mean have they both technically (inaudible), we were talking to Frank Gaffney yesterday and we were discussing the detonation of weapons to intimidate each other and to show China they have them and…

Keyes: I think that it's very important for the United States to maintain its relations with both those countries because though we've had our ups and downs with India, I think that we have been in an era when there's a greater opportunity for us to access that government to continue to have an influence on it. We obviously have a relationship difficult and powerless with the Pakistani government because of the tremendous pressures that exist on that government in terms of its own internal lack of cohesion. But those difficulties cannot discourage us, I think, from trying to use the relationship there in order to avoid what I think would be a very very dangerous confrontation given both the presence of weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that at some point those materials might fall into the hands of some of these terrorists. That's true and we have an interest in making sure that it doesn't happen.

The Shrew: Dr. Keyes, we really appreciate your time today. Thank you for joining us.

IronJack: Like do you see us chasing the diplomatic solution as well as the military?

Keyes: Not always. Let me put it this way. Not always. I think that if by diplomatic solution you mean a solution that does not involve in some way the application of military force, no, there's not always. I think we should understand these things to be complimentary, that sometimes it is appropriate to make sure that you have used military force in such a way as to structure the context for discussion so the people understand. …

Keyes: Exactly. And at the same time, while you're pursuing that, we need to remember that the end result we're trying to achieve is peace. The end result we're trying to achieve is one that can only be achieved at the end of the day, through a negotiated process so that use of force will be in the context of that overall goal. But I think the idea that you can just talk these problems away through diplomatic means is a false idea, particularly when you're dealing with a threat like terrorism.

Keyes certainly has been very supportive of Bush on his Television show, "Alan Keyes Is Making Sense."

But I'm sure if Bush signs the CFR bill for instance, Keyes will not hesitate to be critical of the decision not to veto the bill. Keyes first loyalties are to the Constitution and the Declaration Principles, in other words to the good of the nation rather than to any particular administration or person.

I just got an update that tonight on "Alan Keyes Is Making Sense" (3/12/02), they will debate the partial amnesty measure for illegal immigrants that's scheduled for floor debate and a vote tonight in the U.S. House of Representatives. This amnesty initiative was put forth by the Bush Administration, and the measure is expected to pass. If Keyes is not critical of Bush on this, I will be disappointed.

I see from your Profile Page that you have been in this neighborhood for quite some time. And, given your screen name, I'd be willing to bet that you used to be a paleo-Keyesian. I hope that you're still one of Alan's supporters and that you will continue to stick with him after tonight's show.

As regards both the CFR and immigration bills, Keyes has made his views known. As I've said before elsewhere, one of Alan's most important functions is to provide policymakers with the moral headlights needed to assist them in staying on the right path.

But once the President makes a decision, I am confident that Alan and all neo-Keyseians will remain supportive of his presidency and of his reelection in 2004.

To tell you the truth, Keyes' opinion of Bush seems about the same now as it always has been. You don't see him lionizing the President nor tearing him down. He praises Bush when praise is due, but he clearly feels free to criticize him when appropriate. If it seems he praises him more than usual these days, well, maybe that's because Bush deserves it more now than he did last summer, when he went squishy on stem cell research.

All things considered, I think it's still true that Alan Keyes is "not a Bush Republican," since it is clear he still disagrees with Bush's tendency to be soft on many conservative issues. Keyes is, and always will be, a "Reagan Republican": someone who is stalwart in speaking the truth and standing for what's right, regardless of what's popular or partisan.

My hope is that Bush will become a "Reagan Republican," too. His veto of CFR would be a big step in that direction. It would take a lot of courage to stand against this politically-correct, unconstitutional legislation.

This amnesty initiative was put forth by the Bush Administration, and the measure is expected to pass. If Keyes is not critical of Bush on this, I will be disappointed.

Tonight's show was a good example of Keyes' support of Bush: he seemed to agree with the administration's nuclear strategy, or at least much of it, but he disagreed with Bush on the amnesty thing. He essentially said it was bad political maneuver meant to please Mexico.

I think this illustrates that it can't be said that Keyes has "changed his tune" about Bush, and neither can it be said that Keyes is a "Bush-basher."

It's not who you support, it's what you support that counts. That's obviously the rule Keyes lives by.

Yes, and even though he criticized the amnesty policy, he avoided mentioning Bush's name in relation to it. He may be a critic on policies in which he disagrees with President Bush, but by no means is he a "Bush-basher."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.