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.
Dr. Keyes, at a time last year when he was haunted by an overwhelming envelope of gloom following his electoral defeat in 2000, unleashed, in a series of speeches and columns, a torrent of scathing criticisms of President Bush's policies on a range of issues from abortion to China. His "I am not a Bush Republican" column is one notable example.
The term "paleo-Keyesians" has come to mean those followers and supporters of Dr. Keyes who, because they underestimated the extent to which his perceptions and cognitive thought processes had been impaired by his melancholy state, were inadvertantly misled into believing that Alan's criticisms of the President represented sober and considered judgments on his part.
The fog has now lifted. The real Dr. Keyes is back. Last year's criticisms of President Bush have no value or meaning to anyone other than connoisseurs of psycho-political history. As one poster to this thread has noted, Dr. Keyes has "seen the light."
Obviously, it would be pointless to attempt to provide you with a list of paleo-Keyesian Freepers. Indeed, because the terms paleo- and neo-Keyesian serve best as aids to understanding the philosophical transition that Alan's supporters are being forced to undergo, the list of paleo-Keyesians will consequently shrink on a daily basis. For some in Alan’s camp, the shift from Bush critic to Bush supporter has been an easy one. Unfortunately, there are others who continue to struggle.
I think he's funny and cheerful, but on his fixed idea, wrong.
Permit me, rdf, to repeat what I said in my first post to this thread:
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.
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.
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.
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.
As the foregoing makes clear, none of my comments are in the least bit extravagant or fixed. At post 65, I suggested that another reader “review the transcripts of the Alan Keyes is Making Sense show [to] see if [he/she could] find any criticisms of President Bush.” All of his/her efforts to find any such criticisms have produced an empty harvest.
The paleo-Keyesians (to the extent that they still exist) need something more than hot air to sustain them. Perhaps you would be good enough to “review the transcripts of the Alan Keyes is Making Sense show and see if you can find any criticisms of President Bush.”
What I am getting at is that so often dismissing a good candidate because of one or two issues leaves a totally "dark" so to speak candidate to win the election.
That is how the Dems win the elections - by scrutinizing their opponents while keeping the spotlight away from themselves. You end up selecting your worst enemy because your friend was not 100% perfect. Do wise up.
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.
For governmental action is also the action of a free people.
Very un-Keyes-ian. I'm disappointed.
Don't you mean Marvin the Martian?
Sorry Alan, you know I love you. And since I know you're reading this Alan (Not!) please, less gesticulating with the hands. Remember, you're not on stage giving a speech in front of a live audience. You're a talking head, not a "piezonno" on the streets of Brooklyn describing a car accident you just witnessed.
Get it?
Instead of nickpicking on him think of what he is doing right now - he fearlessly (and alone - not a single Republican admits the existance of the AKIMS show) takes on all the garbage from the Left and fights it regardless of a personal concern - after all he finally got a dream job - all he has to do is listen to his betters...
We at FR can support him in whatever he does.
To me he is like a good painter or a musician - instead of constantly "supervising" and "directing" him just take a joy in watching this remarcable talent grow and develop.
Since 9/11, President Bush’s approval ratings have been hovering at or above 80%. If 80% of Americans think President Bush is doing a great job, that means that 80% are likely to be offended if Alan Keyes says otherwise - and they might not watch the show.
Of the 20% or less of Americans who disapprove of President Bush, most will be far-left, die-hard Democrats, who will not agree with Keyes on anything else, so they are not a good target audience. The far-right remainder will not be enough people to be a good target audience.
Therefore, Dr. Keyes is not going to criticize the President on his TV show, because he wants to keep his TV show, and he needs an audience to do that.
As I understand your post, you attribute this “about face” to a desire on his part to maximize ratings. I readily acknowledge that the profit motive should never be cavalierly discarded. It is entirely possible, as you suggest, that Dr. Keyes has simply subordinated all of the beliefs that he claimed to hold last year for crass commercial reasons. Obviously, I cannot prove that your hypothesis is incorrect or that it is not an important factor in explaining the dramatic shift in Alan’s public posture.
As a neo-Keyesian, however, I am somewhat reluctant to adopt the suggestion that Dr. Keyes has consciously chosen to place his personal pecuniary interest before the moral imperatives that he has spoken about so often in the past. Instead, I prefer to view his outlandish criticisms of President Bush last year as an anomaly attributable to the profound post-election grief and anguish that he endured following the election of 2000.
Our explanations for Alan’s "about face" do differ. I prefer mine because it is grounded in compassion and not malice. I am certain you noticed that just the other night, Alan devoted a portion of his show to the Andrea Yates case. Perhaps that was his way of sharing with us just a glimpse of what he now knows to be the extent to which emotional and mental instability can influence the way we conduct ourselves.
It is, and that is part of what makes J. Allen's account so unhelpful, not to say, misleading.
Keyes is, deep in his soul, a Declarationist American, and in no significant way an elitist. He thinks we are all responsible for the course the nation takes, with due allowance for our different talents and obligations.
Thnaks for looking at the evidence!
Richard F.
The truth of the matter, Symix, at least for myself, is that there are issues I can agree to disagree with: taxes, for example. I can trust that perhaps someone else has better ideas than I do or that I just don't know enough to have an opinion on some subject or point. That sort of thing doesn't bother me.
What Keyes was cited as saying, however, is one of a group of issues which I *will not* support in anyone. It is an issue which reaches down to the fundamental aspects of leadership in a Democracy. This is not an issue where I think he knows more than I do; it is not an issue that I can agree to disagree on; it a make or break issue. To say that Americans must be lied to in order to maintain political cohesion, and worse, that no one should be allowed to question such lies, is simply horrible in my mind. It is fundamentally against the way this country was founded *and* the way it operated for quite some time. Read Toqueville; it is all very clear.
I really liked Keyes. I liked his intelligence and education and his straightforwardness. He, it seemed to me, said, 'This is who I am and what I believe, vote as you will.' This, compared to most candidates (as you pointed out), was very welcome and, I felt, the way candidates were supposed to run. That he has revealed himself to be a closet elitist (in the sense of the educated ruling over the un- or poorly educated) I find dismaying. Instead, I feel he should be trying to educate and helping the masses learn enough to decide for themselves.
I also said in my post that his idea had some truth: *sometimes* we really do need to trust our leaders against our own inclinations. I think all of the founding fathers would've agreed with that as well. What I disagree with is that such an occasion should be at all frequent or that discussion by those who are trying to understand (or understand and disagree) should be stifled. Whenever someone talks about doing an evil for 'the good of the country,' I hear Hillary Clinton saying, 'It's for the children.' I hear the lines of tyrants throughout history who make the same claims; sometimes, they're even right, but more often, they're merely powerhungry.
We must never forget that politicians -- our leaders -- are human. They are flawed. They are susceptable to corruption -- to becoming mad on power. For this reason, we must, as much as possible, keep them accountable and always question what they do. By stifling the discussion of questioning voices, Keyes allows our leaders to act without accountability, which is always very highly dangerous, not to mention a violation of the Constitution.
It is a matter too important to just let slip by, and I have no intention of doing so.
Tuor
I'd really appreciate a response, with actual content.
Cheers,
Richard F.
Very un-Keyes-ian. I'm disappointed
Apparently that is what he is. Freepers who had a run in with Alan three years ago in DC told me but I didn't believe them. In 2000, Forbes and Keyes, in that order, were my picks for the GOP nomination. His actions during the primaries began to change my mind about him. Those who warned me off were right.
I think you're both right.
What I see in Keyes is a man who believes he is superior to President Bush, both morally and intellectually. I think he knew he would lose to Bush in the beginning, but still harbors that "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy" resentment you see in guys like Al Gore, Gary Bauer, and John McCain. It may not be what is driving him to speak out, but I think it drives the manner in which he speaks out, and the language he uses when he does.
That said, I also think he's got bills to pay. The President is very popular right now and will most likely remain so; while a lot of Keyes' disciples seem to dislike President Bush as much as he does, he needs more than his disciples to get his show off the ground. The country is not in the mood to hear that our President is "evil" (something I strongly disagree with); while Keyes has used words like this in this past in relationship to President Bush, I don't think you'll be hearing them on AKIMS.
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.