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.

--- 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.

The few times I've been able to watch more than a nanosecond of his show, he seems more enamored with the sound of his own voice

Everyone is enamored with the sound of his voice.

"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."

Well I thought that is why the founders decided the act of declaring war should be decided in the halls of congress where the statesmaen will have a chance to explain their subtle reasoning to the peoples representatives

Sorry, Mr. Jef Allen. We are NOT an informed electorate.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-- Winston Churchill

THAT'S the reason he wore the same sweater for three week's straight!

For you, I even brought the sweater:

Its an amazing day, I completely agree with you! Keyes is just a camera loving ego-addict, as much as O'Reilly is.

There is a big difference between O'Reilly and Keyes. O'Reilly occasionally criticizes the President.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill

Actually the founders didn't foresee universal sufferage . There were qualifications left to the states to decide

Problem is TOO many people have the right to vote

Keyes is just a camera loving ego-addict,

Thats it? Is that all that drives Keyes?..He couldn't actually believe what he says...far too complicated.

I am so glad you cleared that up for me...

Keys maybe what you describe...but it is among many other things Keyes is...

I think he is far more complex. He certainly posses' a level of intellect that is absent in most television programming...if nothing else I find that refreshing.

EEEK! I'm a knitter. I know sweaters. And I know that there's more than one sweater in this world. But after seeing THAT sweater day after day, I'd like to see it ceremoniously torched, like disco records.

You're missing Donna Summer, aren't you?

Wouldn't she be a great guest for the show?

Alan's comments about peasants and theologians is right from Leo Strauss--Bill Kristol's hero. Keyes not only roomed with Kristol at Harvard, they both developed a similar political philosophy--the Straussian idea that an enlightened elite must guide the peasants.

You're missing Donna Summer, aren't you?

Wouldn't she be a great guest for the show?

I'm holding out for KC--and you can toss in the Sunshine Band. Alan needs music.

Of course, I'll be the one on the couch with her fingers in her ears, going HMMMMMMMMM really loud. Unfortunately, my hubby would not only watch, but say things like, "That song of KC's--it's a classic."

It's a mixed marriage. Sigh.

the Straussian idea that an enlightened elite must guide the peasants.

Does this mean I have to go back to my in-law's farm? I'm just not that fond of the manure spreader, you know, although haying's not bad, just a little hard on the back.

As an Objectivist (I've had to drop the libetarian moniker since 9/11 and seeing the crazy reactions of Browne et al) I found myself lining up with Dr. Keyes on so many issues that I voted for him in the 2000 primary. (Bush was a shoo-in here in Georgia).

Thanks for the ping.

Well said, Alan Keyes.

you know, in the soviet union there was a professional class of people endowed with the ability to make decisions. if alan keyes wants a kommissar class, he's welcome to it. I say all power to the soviets!

Actually the founders didn't foresee universal sufferage . There were qualifications left to the states to decide
No doubt about that.

If you notice Winston C is talking about a democracy. The founding fathers were smart enough to stay away from democracy and go to a Representative Republic with restrictions on who was going to have the right to vote. -Tom

the Straussian idea that an enlightened elite must guide the peasants.

if by force, then fascist. if by birth, monarchy. if by wealth, then plutocracy, but always, always "elitism". very "enlightened". thanks a lot "enlightenment".

(Bush was a shoo-in here in Georgia).

Georgia is just full of neo-Keyesians.

Does this mean I have to go back to my in-law's farm?

Nope. No peasant work for you. I've read what you write. You are glib and clever enough to be an educated elite. All you need is to practice being rude and arrogant. In no time you too will have a cult following.

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.