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.
Problem is TOO many people have the right to vote.
I believe that Dr. Keyes believes in women's suffrage.
I'm not absolutely positive about that, though.
I think you're talking about ancient rumors here, aren't you? I don't think that Kristol and Keyes actually "roomed" together, did they?
And, in any event, Dr. Keyes is now a "Bush Republican."
****
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.
****
Keyes actual and recent words:
"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."
*****
'nuff said.
Have you finished putting down that little paleo-Keyesian uprising over at Declaration Foundation yet?
I think it's more "lewrockwell" types, and a dear old enemy who calls himself "Thomas Aquinas Paine" than it is Keyesians of any stripe!
And I still reject your neo/paleo distinction, but I do find it charming ...
Cheers,
Richard F.
Ditto! Both are embarrassments. I guess that's why they don't do each other's shows. Ego size = Doublewide.
Well, I know that it can't be that easy for you right now, with one foot in the past and one in the future.
But I'm keeping an eye on you and I think you're coming along pretty well, for the most part. I know that deep down inside you're as thrilled as I am to have the real Alan Keyes back.
BTW, a question came up that I couldn't readily answer. Does Alan support the Nineteenth Amendment?
Cheers,
Richard F.
Sure, but it's a Straussian support, so it really means he's against it...
Sarcasm off ...
Seriously he does, it's the Sixteenth he's against.
Keep the faith.
Speaking of it taking one to know one. Since the topic here is whether or not one supports such activities as the despicable attack on he 9/11 survivors by the cartoonist Ted Rall, and we all know that you would never violate FR rules by going off topic on your first post to a thread, I take it that you support Mr. Rall and his anti-American hate. Or perhaps you take the position of the writer of the article, Jef Allen, and despise Keyes for being too slavish a Bush supporter.
Which is it, VA?
1) You hate America;
2) You hate President Bush;
3) You hate Jim Robinson and Free Republic by violating the forum rules against going off-topic or attacking GOP candidates?
Whichever it is, it is clear that you are a hater, and a really sick puppy!
Jef Allen is obviously a paleo-Keyesian.
It's one of the anti-Lincoln, anti-GOP network.
Worth browsing ...
Richard F.
I think it's most likely the latter - some people now "despise Keyes for being too slavish a Bush supporter." The return of the real Alan Keyes has been a source of a great deal of pain for some of the paleo-Keyesians.
Bush-Keyes in 2004!
That seems pretty clear to me,
even if he doesn't himself realize it yet.
Try covering the picture or tune it to invisibility, if this is a problem for you.
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.