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.

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.

LarryLied, in order to minimize the risk that your suggestive post might lead to baseless and scandalous rumors, I think it might be best for you to explain what happened "three years ago in DC."

Thanks.

I think you're both right.

Well, unfortunately, by associating yourself with Amelia's explanation for the "about face" of Dr. Keyes, you should understand that you are in essence accusing Dr. Keyes of "selling out" his principles for pecuniary reasons. I really wish that you would give further consideration to my alternative explanation that Alan's criticisms of the President last year resulted from the stress and pressure of some rather unique circumstances.

Please give Dr. Keyes another chance. He won't let you down.

Please give Dr. Keyes another chance. He won't let you down.

LOL!! Pretty funny...

Look, I'm not saying I disagree with you entirely. I said that I think you're right - but I also think Amelia's theory is every bit as valid as yours. There have been some interesting stories in the press regarding the way Keyes has handled finances in the past, and I have to assume he needs to make money just like most people do. He no longer has the luxury of speaking his mind without regard to how people will respond; it is my impression that his show isn't doing all that well, and nipping at the heels of a popular president probably would not do much to help his already dismal ratings.

That's just "life in the big city", humbletheFiend.

Great post Tuor, appreciate the effort and time taken.
I had similar misgivings on another topic with Dr. Keyes and felt strongly about it. It took me quite a while to realize that Dr. Keyes is a kind of person one could trust because of his strong moral compass. With him I feel we can discuss our point and perhaps educate and persuade him or the other way around where he would educate us (we might be wrong too). In any event we would have a good chance with him for he would do right by the Constitution and would not succumb to the liberals and media.

Can I/you say the same thing about any other political leader? Am I in fact crossing out the only salvation the country might have and leave the field to the enemies who like Clinton would promise you anything you like to hear?
Well it is a long time to the elections and Dr Keyes is not a candidate and perhaps won't be, so let's concentrate on the good this show does. There are people on this thread who always call for the show to fail but most believe strongly it does a lot of good. So which side do you take?

Again and again she frames her posts in terms of Keyes dissing Bush. She invites others to disprove the allegations instigating numorous battles pro and con.
But proving or disproving this creates a totally false climate of a tabu on questioning administration and a personal cult for the president. So far GWB cave in on practically every matter to the Dems, from Recovery Stimulus to Vouchers for children. I am sure he did the best he could with the Dems riding the Senate but one must admit there is a ground for disapproval.

Allen is a paleo-Vallandighamite.

Would "neo-Copperhead" be an improvement in terminology? More people have read about the Copperheads than about Vallandigham in particular, or where he diverged from Lincoln.

Of course, the term "Copperhead" is itself prejudicial (he said, raising a difficulty to his own proposal), and some people like Vallandigham and Navy Secretary Gideon Welles (who agreed with Vallandigham about habeas corpus and the closing of Democratic newspapers, but kept his mouth shut and did as he was told) were principled moderates who perhaps had reservations about Lincoln's policies; but if they said anything publicly like Vallandigham, they were systematically stigmatized and, in Vallandigham's case, actually jailed for expressions of view on the peremptory order of General Ambrose Burnside and a military trial court.

Since we are all using Vallandigham's name, it might be useful to recall that he was a moderate Democrat who supported Douglas against Breckinridge and the bolters in 1860, who personally opposed slavery, and whose opposition to Lincoln was principled rather than gratuitous, and founded in constitutional law, about which he was passionate and even quarrelsome. Of course, nobody is quarrelsome about con law any more.

Dear Amelia,

Here is a paragraph from a speech of Keyes that puts the relationship rather nicely, IMHO.

****

"And that very simple train of logic, it seems to me, helps us to understand the relationship between the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence and what was then later formulated to be the instrument of government in this country, which is the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution represents an effort to put together a framework of government that reflects and respects the basic understanding of justice and right which is succinctly articulated in the Declaration. It is, to the Declaration, what an architect's drawing is to the scientific principles of engineering. So that the architect, with an understanding of those principles, puts together a framework in which those principles are embodied in a viable or workable model. And that is, of course, what our Founders were seeking to do when they put together the Constitution of the United States."

*******

And here is a link to the whloe text. "The Spirit of American Law"

A Delcarationist is one who holds that the political and philosophical truths in the Declaration are the touchstone of American political life, and consequently will use them for interpreting the Constitution, among other things. A Declarationist is also, in a large sense, a Constitutionalist, since the authors of the Constitution shared the vision of the Declaration. A mere Constitutionalist, like Justice Scalia, will not go back to the Declaration in his thought, but rests his case on the positive law set out in the Constitution alone. In practise, the two camps will often, even usually, agree.

Hope that Keyes and I did a decent job of expressing our thought, and that you find this reply helpful.

Richard F.

"...drafted into bureaucratic civil service work..."

A menacingly statist idea. There is no compelling reason to coerce U.S. citizens into such a bureaucracy at this time. It is alarming the extent to which many so-called "conservatives" are enthralled with such socialist, statist, and secular humanist ideas. What is disturbing is that they use the idea that the masses are essentially lazy, worthless, and weak and that, therefore, everyone needs to be forced into some sort of passive aggressive boot camp (staffed by angry butch bureaucrats hell-bent on trying to program people to feel guilty about being free, no doubt). This is absurd. Conservatives, like liberal socialists, are using the excuse that high school students need to be regimented in order to push more big government. If the schools are wasting money in a soulless, dysfunctional bureaucracy, why should we expect a "civil service" program to be any different? No encroachment on liberty by government bureaucrats! Keyes and the others are morons to support this kind of insufferable nonsense. We don't need the police state bureaucracy which they are pushing. Drug abuse, delinquency, youth apathy, and declining test scores are no reason for proposing this totalitarian absurdity. Did anyone else notice how ominously they leaped rhetorically from Columbine and the OKC bombing to this nutty idea? Since when do the actions of a couple of nuts mandate turning the whole country into a forced labor camp? I seem to remember something about NOT depriving people of "life, liberty, or property WITHOUT due process of law." We used to joke about these kinds of programs being typical of places like the Soviet Union.

the political and philosophical truths in the Declaration are the touchstone of American political life, and consequently will use them for interpreting the Constitution, among other things.

It had been my appreciation that a Declarationist is likely to appeal to the Declaration, in order to assist the processes of legal positivism where the Constitution won't permit it. But then, I've read too many quotations of William O. Douglas, perhaps.

A Declarationist is also, in a large sense, a Constitutionalist, since the authors of the Constitution shared the vision of the Declaration.

It was my recollection that the biggest Declarationist of all, Jefferson, who'd supposedly have sided with the Anti-Federalists if he'd been present for the Constitutional Convention, was hustled out of town with the embassy to France by the Federalists, who wanted him out of the way.

Even now, when I read Hamilton's argument that a Bill of Rights would be counterproductive, since it was the fixed object of the Federalists that the Constitution should always be considered as narrowly delegating powers to the federal government -- more accurately, under his massaging, the central government -- and therefore to enumerate rights might tend to diminish rather than fortify individual liberties........I can almost hear Hillary talking.

Post 223: That's just "life in the big city", humbletheFiend.

Post 225: Just wondering, are you two one in the same?

So it must be that now, after devoting so much of my valuable time and attention to this illuminating and informative thread, I find these to be among the fruits of my labors, eh? From a perennial Keyes critic, I get curt dismissals. From a paleo-Keyesian, I get paranoid delusions. And from rdf (a fellow neo-Keyesian!), I get nothing, not even so much as an acknowledgement of my post to him near the top of this page.

So it must be that now, more than ever, I truly appreciate the darkness through which Dr. Keyes was forced to pass.

And so it must be that now, like him, I shall pursue my own delusion:

BUSH-KEYES

2004

Do you have anything, that won't be deleted, to say to my # 197?

The test of political figures, a political philosophy and a religion is how well they tolerate humor. The more prickly they are about it, the more they want to stop people from poking fun at them, the more authoritarian and dangerous they are. Straussian elitist's power rests upon respect and adoration. Humor is verboten.

Amelia,

You may now graduate to the FR Secession threads, otherwise known as the "Second American Civil War." [SACW]

LOL

If you think we have trouble staying in bounds on the Keyes threads, just try the SACW threads!

Seriously, though, Lincoln was the model Declarationist, and he was neither an abolitionist nor a defender of secession. The rebellion of 1860-1 tried to overturn a Constitutionally authorized election in order to preserve and extend human slavery, violating both Constitutionalist and Declarationist principles. The Rebellion was a violation of the law which Lincoln was sworn to uphold, and the Rebels fired first, on the US flag over US property in Charleston Harbor.

Lincoln maintained that all his actions were in accord with the Constitution, esp. the Emancipation Proclamation and the suspension of Habeas Corpus. If he undertook any action not authorized by the Constitution, he was in error. He did not understand himself to have done so.

The national memory, as witnessed by holidays, monuments, the currency, and the like testifies to a consensus view of his rectitude and greatness.

At DF, we take him as the paradigm Declarationist Statesman, and we argue for this position in our book.

Cheers,

Richard F.

Humor is verboten.

Would you join me in asking JimRob to let me post again my Keysters/Bushies Parody thread? Nearly everyone who posted thought it a scream, and not at all unkind ... until it was deleted. I've still got it on my hard drive ... want a copy, suitable for framing?

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.