Posted on 03/16/2002 1:32:37 PM PST by humbletheFiend
See #180. You two live in the SanFernando Valley, right?
Try reading #100 and 102 above, and you will see that at the very least you have been strongly disagreeing with her position.
I wouldn't be concerned about it. She'll see it for what it is.
That's true but since a misrepresentation is continuing, I thought she should be aware.
You realize, of course, that both you and Keyes sound like Plato's "Oligarchic Man", and the protagonists of Camelot and the "Imperial Presidency"?
People so ill-informed shouldn't be allowed to judge their betters -- upon what basis, with what coarse reasoning, superstition, and misinformation would they presume to judge:
1) The Liberal Media,
2) Ivy-educated elites,
3) The "ten wise men" who left LBJ holding the bag for Viet Nam,
4) The folks who brought you Hillarycare, or
5) Just about every other snotbag liberal cabal you ever heard of?
Would you like to think about this for a minute? Oh, wait, time out -- you aren't qualified to have an opinion! Go to the back of the class, and wait to be told what your opinions are.
Catch my drift here? Alan's choosing up sides, and if the recent past is any indication, we ain't gonna get chosen, citizen.
What, is there now a degree requirement for being a citizen? Having an opinion? Discussing Keyes?
Does everyone who doesn't have at least a BA in philosophy from Xavier or better, have to go home? What's the threshold these days?
Since rdf has retired for the evening, I believe, you will have to make do with my less informed opinion. In #74 above, LarryLied charged Keyes with being an elitist because he studied Strauss' ideas, which as I later pointed out were very prominent in intellectual conservative circles at the time. In the post you responded to, rdf, who is in a position to know more about Keyes's thinking, was giving more details, pointing out that Keyes, unlike some other Straussians, was personally religious, as well as a believer in the social usefulness of religion.
There was not even a hint of the ideas that you suggest. Perhaps you would like it if there was a non-degree requirement, forbidding the literate from commenting here. I guess that would work to your advantage. (Sorry to be so sharp, but it is after 4 am, and this information was readily available if you had read the earlier posts).
This quote, if not taken out of context (and I don't see how it could be), spells the end of my respect for Alan Keyes, which hitherto was very great.
The idea that it is necessary for the State to repress dissent through the use of force in order to maintain national unity in a time of crisis is one with which I strongly disagree.
The tenor of the statements cited (some of which could've been taken out of context), seems to be that Keyes believes that the rabble is too stupid to understand the complexities of diplomacy and should just agree with whatever their elected representatives do in their name. While there is *some* truth in such a statement, ultimately the people are responsible for their representatives. If that is accepted as true, then the people do have a vested interest in attempting to determine what their representatives are doing and to address matters when it appears their representatives are not acting in accordance with the wishes of the People or with established Law.
Therefore, I feel there is nothing wrong with people talking about the actions of their representatives and questioning them if they appear wrong. That one form of addressing issues is through the media no one can deny. What Keyes seems to be saying is that such an avenue should be closed if it is against the governments' interests to have such matters questioned. IMO, it is just such ocassions that it is most important that they remain available, and that was part of what the First Amendment was all about.
If Keyes thinks the masses are too stupid to understand the subtlties well enough to make educated decisions on our own, then my response is two-fold.
First, we should ensure that our citizens are educated to the point they can, at least dimly, perceive the reasons their elected leaders are doing what they are doing. This used to be the case, but it is the case no longer. The reasons for this failing are numerous and can be addressed elsewhere.
Second, it is one of the duties of our leaders that they be able to communicate their actions to us in a way we can understand. This is *their* burden; it is ours to listen closely.
Just because our leaders tell us something, doesn't mean we should blindly follow or follow without comment. We are charged to observe and decide for our selves. We are responsible for the country, not them. That is why they are called *Public Servants* and not *Temporary Masters*.
The Constitution does not say, so far as I know, that you only have to follow it when you want to or when it is expedient to do so. There is a means of changing it, it is true, but, to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in it that says you can ignore it. For this reason, I do not agree with what Lincoln did. In *some* ways, it has lead to the sort of things which are happening today. Suspending the Constitution was probably a hard decision for him to make: between breaking the Constitution to save the country and obeying it and risk having the country greatly reduced (I do not say 'split in two' as the South would no longer have been part of the US).
I wasn't alive during the Civil War, but I am alive now, and I would never support the suspension of the Constitution for *any* reason, however noble or important it may seem. If Alan Keyes does not agree with me on this issue, then I will never support him for any public office nor will I support anyone who believes likewise. Since it appears that Keyes *does* believe that it is okay to stifle public discussion at certain times, I no longer support him, nor will I defend him here on FR or anywhere else.
Tuor
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.
Would this be evidence that Dr. Keyes is an elitist?
Mental capacity in this context does not mean dumb vs. smart, which even if it did would not be a basis for thinking one is better than another, but it relates to the spheres people apply themselves in. If I spend my day working in foreign affairs I have a greater mental capacity to understand forces which would compell us to war than if I spent my day being an engineer, or a dog cather.
Both of you might like to add to your consideration these words from the a column by Keyes this month at WND.
****
"Among the many responsibilities and privileges of a free people, one of the noblest is the task of forming and maintaining principled resolve in time of war. Citizens of the free American Republic must supply something beyond what was demanded of the subjects of warlike kingdoms. Along with willing soldiers and a beehive of impassioned support at home, we must supply as well the sustained national act of will to prosecute the war. And this will must be formed from a genuine understanding that our cause is just. Our leaders can and must help in this – indeed, there may be no more important responsibility they face than ensuring that we only wield the sword when our cause is just. But the ultimate responsibility is ours."
***
Tuor, you might consider Lincoln's own defense of the Constitutionality and wisdom of his suspension of Habeas Corpus and his undertaking other measures to stop Copperhead sedition.
I can hunt them down for you if you like.
If you are concerned about the context of the quote you responded to, go checkout the whole column at worldnetdaily.
Whether you like or support Keyes is quite secondary; he is not running for any office; he is addressing you and me as a fellow citizen, and the real question is what we should, or should not, think and do about national resolve and understanding in wartime.
Regards,
Richard F.
I believe you are mistaken, if by "on any of these threads" you mean here at FR. Keyes' having studied with Bloom was discussed numerous times during the primaries, and those who suspect a deep Keyes/Kristol connection have raised the point in the past.
What was new here was the extent of the conversation of the influence of Strauss on conservative thought, and a bit of the content of Strauss' thinking.
Regards,
Richard F.
I've always thought Keyes was an incredibly eloquent speaker -- when I first heard him, my thought was that American political discourse had not had such a speaker for at least 50 years previous.
What I've noticed since then, is that often when I hear him speak, my first thought is "That was beautiful!" followed by "but what did he really say?" I've especially noticed this in trying to condense what is being said to transcribe it on the AKIMS live threads.
In fact, I'd encourage people who disagree with what I've said to go back and read the Transcript of Alan Keyes CPAC Interview. You'll notice that Dr. Keyes has a wonderful vocabulary, but in many sentences, he gets caught up in the verbage and never finishes his thoughts. In others, he uses 20 words to say what he could have said in 5.
Playing to an receptive audience does this over the years. But, as you mention, those who were delighted at first drifted away as Alan became a parody of himself.
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.