Posted on 03/16/2002 1:32:37 PM PST by humbletheFiend
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.
Quote one:
"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?
Quote two:
". . . 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?
Quote three:
". . . 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.
Quote four:
"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."
--- This statement is so shocking I am going to break it down:
". . . 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.
You Bush bashers are all alike, go call the nurse to bring your meds, you are overdue!
Maybe that's why I bore so quickly with Keyes. Its a lot easier to understand what he's saying.
You mean silly stuff like this?
NEW YORK TIMES: What about Bush's rhetorical abilities?
ALAN KEYES: Oh, I don't want to. . . .
No need for that. Dropping the editorial "we" as in "we are struggling to understand..." would prevent many from changing that dial.
Coming from someone who is not capable of following forum rules, and has the acumen of a paramecium, this high praise indeed! In fact, I am so overwhelmed by your admiration that I am just too modest to respond to any further posts from such an admirer (I am afraid I am just not that kind of guy, and do not want to encourage your flirtations).
One can be an insufferable elitist without lobbying for new laws. Keyes does, however, want to do some of what you mention (drug & porno laws being the most obvious) but nothing which upsets me.
Nitpicking, nitpicking!
Bloom, at least, writes so well that he charms rather than repulses the reader, so one is (if sympathetic) willing to read his book again and again, with closer and closer attention; but not even the most sympathetic reader can really be sure, in the end, precisely what Bloom really means, behind all the good and important things he does say.
--Karl Jahn
Yup. Alan is a Straussian.
What did you think of the information I shared with you earlier?
I want to discuss the article you posted and the writer a little.
Quote one:
"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?
Here is the rest of the Keyes quote the writer left out
But, like the faith of the holy peasant, the people's grasp of the essential realities can be astonishingly complete, and deep – even wise – when it is in a form that a cynic might find simplistic.
Keyes was making an anology, can you say that, a-n-a-l-o-g-y. That takes care of the writers first point. As for the second point, I do not see where Keyes says he believes our leaders are infallible. If I remember my politicking days it was usually the liberals or those bereft of logical and true arguments who put words into others mouths then used those words to attack.
Quote two:
". . . 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?
This quote was linked to the first with a missing "Thus" in Keyes article which the writer had some reason to replace with three dots and save himself a single character in his copy. Keyes was saying that due to the fact ordinary people do not have the time or perhaps the mental capacity to learn or understand all the political intricasy which moves us to war, images and untarnished memories of events such as the WTC, Pentagon, and yes Pearl Harbor in flames, are essential to keep public support of a war. The missing "Thus" is essential in the Keyes article to link the ideas of the first quote and second quote together but your writer saw fit to eliminate it and attack the two parts separately.
Even standing on its own this second quote is not absolute trash just because Mr. Allen says it is. Even if FDR knew of PH in advance does that make our involvement in WWII unethical or the war unjust? I shudder to think what would have happened if we didn't get involved when we did. As much as it pains me to say it, perhaps a sacrifice to prevent a much larger sacrifice down the road is sometimes the appropriate action for a leader to take if they truly have all the correct information. Keyes also never said the images create the justification for acts of aggression but was making the point those images are essential for public support. Again, your writer was putting words into his mouth. And finally, I would like some concrete examples of our unjust assaults this writer seems to think would justify other nations in their attacks on America rather than his innuendo. He sounds to me like those liberals who were saying we deserved what happened on 9/11.
Quote three:
". . . 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.
Again, and I'm getting a little tired of this....here is the entire quote.
"A free people should normally suppress such activities through private moral judgment and association. Pornographers should be shunned by all, and likewise Mr. Ted Rall should have been fired immediately by those with professional authority over him, or in contractual relations with him..."
Your writer conveniently leaves out the first part of this quote where Keyes makes another analogy to decency, citizenship, and love of America. He was saying if the editors at the Times were decent, patriotic citizens they should have ceased their relationship with this heartless cartoonist. Sure we have freedom of speech but every idiot does not deserve the public megaphone. It is an editors responsibility to make decisions about what gets printed. This third misquoted bit was an attack on the editors not some attempt to claim the first amendment is mute in this case as the clever editing tries to make it seem. Again, this type of weak attack is transparent to anyone with the sense, the ability, and the desire to know for themselves what to think. It has always been one of the liberals best weapons because people just read this garbage and believe the writers selective and self serving quote is truly indicative of the individual they are attacking.
Quote four:
"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."
--- This statement is so shocking I am going to break it down:
". . . 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.
This guy has been breaking the quotes down to bits he can easily wrap his attacks around all through this article so why bother to point it out here? How can we possibly take 9/11 out of the equation. The subject of Keyes article was a degrading and heartless cartoon lampooning the suffering as a result of 9/11 which was printed in the biggest newspaper in the country. As Keyes so elegantly pointed out in his article but this writer saw fit to skim over or in his desire to attack just didn't understand,
"Serious debate about the war and its purpose is crucial, and freedom to conduct this debate, in Congress and elsewhere, must be non-negotiable in all but the most genuinely extreme circumstances.
But this brutal and inhuman comic strip was not debate – it was an assault on the decent national sensibilities crucial to the war effort.
What this cartoonist did was mean and served absolutely no purpose but to make fun of the tragedy. The cartoon had nothing to do with a course of action to which the government is committed so how can Keyes statements regarding the cartoon be an attempt to suggest government should suppress such discussion. The quote I used from the Keyes article makes this point abundantly clear but your writer only seems to see what he wants to see and use whatever serves his purpose. I think anyone with a brain can see what that purpose is. I'll leave the why to the writers own conscience.
This last section also points out the difficulty your writer has retaining a track of thought for very long. He has completely lost track of the subject of the Keyes article in his last diatribe. Or maybe it is just more of that selective analysis I am usually used to seeing at GoLeft.com instead of FR.com. If you go to the writers website you will also see he calls Keyes a statist and/or corrupt which is probably the best indication of his rabid, misguided notions.
In my opinion, associating yourself with the type of analysis displayed in this article and then going around this thread proclaiming your knowledge of Keyes and classifying people on your own misguided notions is the ultimate in petty pretensiousness. Go ahead and put me in one of your categories. I haven't said a word about what I personally think of Keyes, this war, or Bush, but knowing absolutely nothing about a subject doesn't seem to stop some people from issuing opinions these days.
KUDOS!
Richard F.
That is what they pay and get paid for in the soft sciences at Harvard. Opinions. Gotta have a lot of opinions. Opinions about everything. The more obscure and off the wall, the better. Affectations are prized as well.
More to the point, there was a lot of nonsense in Allen's hit piece on Keyes. Ted Rall's awful cartoon was worse than nonsense, and Keyes was right to take him to task for it.
Let's try "Making Sense..."
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.