Is Alan Keyes Making Sense?

Conservative pundit Alan Keyes has never been one to shy from controversy, but his latest column for the Internet news and commentary site World Net Daily comes as quite a shock to those of us who believed that Ambassador Keyes was a strict Constitutionalist.

In his column, “Shunning the Intolerable”, Keyes writes in response to a comic strip by artist Ted Rall, in which Rall skewers the industry of 9/11 victimhood, and the associated greed that has overwhelmed the issue. One can understand Keyes discomfort with the satire. It is very direct, and Rall pulls no punches with what he obviously sees as an ambulance chase of epic proportions. Rall is known for his biting satire, and his hyperbole is more than evident in this strip. However, it is Alan Keyes’ reaction to Rall’s satire that is most interesting.

Keyes accuses Rall of “an assault on the decent national sensibilities crucial to the war effort” for his act of, as Keyes perceives it, trivializing the tragic events of 9/11. Not satisfied with that, he then proceeds to crush the Constitution under one of the most contrived excuses for the suppression of civil liberties published by a conservative since the attacks took place. Examining the following excerpted quotes shows a disturbing willingness on Keyes part to use government to suppress free speech.

"Of course, an entire people cannot have so perfect an understanding as its statesmen of the causes that justify, even require, going to war. Human history has taught us time and time again that as the simple faith of the peasant necessarily lacks much of the precision of the theologian's doctrine, so the judgment of any nation will always lack much of the sophistication of the statesman's subtle reasoning."

--- Just what is Keyes saying here? The American people are not ignorant peasants toiling in some remote fiefdom. We are supposed to be an informed electorate. As such, while we lack access to all of the information available to our national leaders (by their design, not coincidentally), we should certainly be able to grasp the overriding moral justification of committing to the act of war. What does Keyes believe endows our leaders with any degree of infallibility when it comes to the issue of committing America's youth to death on foreign shores, not to mention the act of killing foreign nationals as an expression of our foreign policy in the extreme? More to the point, would he be making these statements if Bill Clinton was still president, or is this simply because he has faith in a Republican administration?

". . . the importance of such events, such images, as Pearl Harbor aflame and the Lusitania sinking beneath the waves. These events became slogans precisely because the proximate cause of a just war, which exemplifies the evil being fought, has to be remembered for what it was if the people are to maintain their steady judgment and purpose. Such events are essential icons of the people's faith that their cause is just."

---This is absolute trash, especially when, with the benefit of hindsight, we understand the complexities of both the Lusitania attack (munitions being transported on passenger ships), and the well-documented suspicions surrounding FDR's advance knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor. In other words, unethical leaders could manipulate these iconic events so as to create popular support for an unjust war. The events and images do not, in and of themselves, create the justification for acts of aggression against foreigners. The word for that, I believe, is "propaganda."

Secondarily, if iconic images of unjust assaults against a sovereign nation were enough to commit the populace to war, haven't we provided plenty of those images to our own enemies in the past?

". . . Mr. Ted Rall should have been fired immediately by those with professional authority over him, or in contractual relations with him. Such action in defense of the decent judgment of this people in regard to 9-11 would be more than sufficient to keep such as Mr. Rall from subverting our national resolve."

--- Just how fragile is our "national resolve" if it can be subverted by a comic strip? I see Rall's comic as political speech in the purest sense, and that should be protected speech, not lumped in, as Keyes does, with pornography, simply because he finds the satire offensive.

"But it is worth remembering that when serious and sustained attempts to undermine public opinion on a matter genuinely essential to national life cannot be resisted by other means, governmental action may be necessary. For governmental action is also the action of a free people. Such was the case, despite all the continuing petulant complaints of superficial 'civil libertarians,' when President Lincoln was obliged to suppress rebellion in some northern citizens (some of whom happened to be newspaper editors), so that the rebellion of many more southern citizens could be effectively ended, and our great Civil War to maintain the Union brought to a victorious conclusion."

". . . when serious and sustained attempts to undermine public opinion on a matter genuinely essential to national life cannot be resisted by other means, governmental action may be necessary. For governmental action is also the action of a free people."

--- What can Keyes possibly mean by this statement? Take 9/11 and George W. Bush’s response out of the equation, and just read the statement straight up. Is Keyes saying that free political speech is limited by the degree to which it might possibly change public opinion regarding a course of action to which the government is committed? It would appear so. If the government senses that the opposition is gaining traction, then, Keyes insists, it is the responsibility of the government to act to suppress the offensive speech. Keyes then goes on to further state that "governmental action is also the action of a free people." That statement is so incredible it virtually defies comment.

Keyes subsequent support of Lincoln's atrocious suspension of American's civil liberties during the War Between the States is just an extension of his flawed logic. It is a frightening notion that Keyes, an individual who is seen as an icon of strict Constitutional interpretation and a defender of individual rights, would deem it acceptable for the President of the United States to incarcerate citizens of this nation because he fears their influence on the opinions of other Americans.

Once again, we are reminded how tenuous our civil liberties are, and how important it is that we remain constantly vigilant as individuals to their eradication by an overreaching and paranoid government seeking to use force to preserve itself against perceived enemies.

What an...uh...interesting post. Where to begin...

Regarding to the article, the author has an obvious axe to grind with any Lincoln Republican and that would obviously include Alan Keyes and most Republicans outside the Confederate South. Most of his ramblings seem petty and not worthy of discussion from me.

Now to your opinions...

As even the most casual of viewers have noticed, Dr. Alan Keyes has not been using his new television show (Alan Keyes is Making Sense) to criticize President Bush or any of the President’s policies. Dr. Keyes has put his “I am not a Bush Republican” days far behind him now and is now solidly back in the President’s camp. He fully supports all of the President’s policies and it is not an exaggeration to say that Alan Keyes is the President’s best friend in the media.

Oh he still has some disagreements with President Bush, as do most Republicans. Nobody can please everybody all the time. I probably agree with Dr. Keyes 99.9% of the time on the issues. Just because Keyes may not have said any harsh criticism on President Bush lately is no reflection on a change in Keyes. I've supported him since 1996 and Alan is remarkably consistent, something you cannot say for a typical politician.

An as far as Bush’s “best friend in the media,” Rush Limbaugh may be his best friend. Television-wise, I don’t know. Perhaps Keyes has an edge on Sean Hannity, Tony Snow et al. But Keyes will not be a mouthpiece for the Bush administration and will criticize where it is deemed appropriate.

The real Alan Keyes is back in the saddle. He is more mature now. He looks better and he feels better about himself. He has overcome the post-election melancholy that plagued him in 2001. Many of us simply ignored Alan’s intemperate outbursts of criticism against the President last year because we could sense the post-election grief and anguish that enveloped his soul.

I have never seen a post-election "melancholy" or "grief" or "anguish" from Keyes. Certainly he was far less visible in 2001 than 2000 or this year. In 2001, he substituted for Bill O'Reilly a couple of times and attended conservative conferences and spoke out for pro-life causes. I’m sure he knew he was a longshot but held his ground and made the debates livelier. The events of 9/11, of course, put much more emphasis with foreign policies and the war effort and Keyes does support the war effort. Doesn't change his opinions on more domestic matters.

Unfortunately, the return of the real Alan Keyes has not been without its share of critics. A few of his fans, known as paleo-Keyesians, are having a difficult time adjusting to the return of the real Alan Keyes. They wait in vain for Dr. Keyes to use his new television forum to castigate President Bush for what they perceive as failings or shortcomings in many areas of our nation’s foreign and domestic policy. Quite simply, they are reluctant to accept that the real Alan Keyes is a Bush Republican after all.

I have no idea who you are referring to with this curious "paleo" label. I would appreciate a list of Freepers who you feel fit into this category (you can Freep-mail this to me so as not to inflame tempers). The only anger I see here are those who feel slighted with any criticism of President Bush. I don't listen to Keyes to hear him bash Bush. I listen to the issues and his take on them, which are well reasoned even in the rare instance I disagree with him. And there are policies of the Bush administration I do disagree with and don't mind exercising my 1st Amendment rights when I feel the need. And I will give Bush congratulations when he does something right too.

On the other hand, the neo-Keyesians, myself included, knew all along that once Dr. Keyes regained his composure, his silly criticisms of the President would cease. We welcome Alan back and join him in our complete support of the Bush White House.

Silly criticisms of Bush would be along the lines of his speaking style and how he says "nuclear." Criticisms of issues are not silly but substantial (I, of course, am not referring to leftist criticism which is never about substance).

What's the big deal about Lincoln?

Since you ask...

********

Declaration Foundation

February 28, 2002

Why we care about Lies told against Lincoln... and what some of those lies have been since Feb 12th, 2002

Lincoln, more than any other American statesman, understood himself to be acting from Declaration Principles..

This Foundation is about acting from Declaration Principles.

Your Chairman, Ambassador Alan Keyes, and your President are on record numerous times as holding that Lincoln did exemplify those principles. It becomes our duty, then to correct falsehoods and sneers against the chief exemplar of our mission. Uncorrected, those lies will be retold and believed, by some, to the detriment of this Foundation and the Republic it seeks to serve.

#####snip#####

For the Truths of the Declaration he lived and he died, and for that death and that life, Americans honor and love him to this day.

Liberty and Union, Now and Forever!

Dr. Richard Ferrier
President, Declaration Foundation

********

For the whole article, click Here

Cheers,

Richard F.

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.