Replies

THE DEATH THROES OF THE PALEO-KEYESIANS

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.

A giant "Bush-Keyes in 2004" Ping!

Keyes is a pompous bore.

I'm.............................just not quite sure what to say about this post. There are FAR too many "angles" here.........

I voted for Keyes in the Republican Primary of 2000, but one unsettling fact about him is his support for National Service where college age people are drafted into beareaucratic civil service work.

the simple faith of the peasant necessarily lacks much. . .

Ain't it the truth, ain't it the truth. Alan nails it again.

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.

I believe Alan Keyes is a brilliant man and a great conservative thinker, but watching his show makes me nervous as heck. Too much fidgeting, hand gestures and voice raising! I know those are lousy reasons, but I just can't take more than 5 minutes of Making Sense because of them.

I think you need some rest. Keyes hasn't changed. He is just addressing more issues on his show in more depth, than he did on the campaign trail. And on a lot of those issus he is a mainstream very conservative Pubbie (like on the national sales tax, which I find horrific). In fact, he is probably to the right of Bush on almost every issue I can think of, but not in a Buchanan or Browne or third party kind of way. But I do find it encouraging that he hasn't talked about the evils of "globalism" post campaign, which he mouthed a couple of times during the campaign. That was a low point.

What an...uh...interesting post. Where to begin...

Regarding to the article, the author has an obvious axe to grind with any Lincoln Republican and that would obviously include Alan Keyes and most Republicans outside the Confederate South. Most of his ramblings seem petty and not worthy of discussion from me.

Now to your opinions...

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.

Oh he still has some disagreements with President Bush, as do most Republicans. Nobody can please everybody all the time. I probably agree with Dr. Keyes 99.9% of the time on the issues. Just because Keyes may not have said any harsh criticism on President Bush lately is no reflection on a change in Keyes. I've supported him since 1996 and Alan is remarkably consistent, something you cannot say for a typical politician.

An as far as Bush’s “best friend in the media,” Rush Limbaugh may be his best friend. Television-wise, I don’t know. Perhaps Keyes has an edge on Sean Hannity, Tony Snow et al. But Keyes will not be a mouthpiece for the Bush administration and will criticize where it is deemed appropriate.

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.

I have never seen a post-election "melancholy" or "grief" or "anguish" from Keyes. Certainly he was far less visible in 2001 than 2000 or this year. In 2001, he substituted for Bill O'Reilly a couple of times and attended conservative conferences and spoke out for pro-life causes. I’m sure he knew he was a longshot but held his ground and made the debates livelier. The events of 9/11, of course, put much more emphasis with foreign policies and the war effort and Keyes does support the war effort. Doesn't change his opinions on more domestic matters.

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.

I have no idea who you are referring to with this curious "paleo" label. I would appreciate a list of Freepers who you feel fit into this category (you can Freep-mail this to me so as not to inflame tempers). The only anger I see here are those who feel slighted with any criticism of President Bush. I don't listen to Keyes to hear him bash Bush. I listen to the issues and his take on them, which are well reasoned even in the rare instance I disagree with him. And there are policies of the Bush administration I do disagree with and don't mind exercising my 1st Amendment rights when I feel the need. And I will give Bush congratulations when he does something right too.

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.

Silly criticisms of Bush would be along the lines of his speaking style and how he says "nuclear." Criticisms of issues are not silly but substantial (I, of course, am not referring to leftist criticism which is never about substance).

If this guy thinks that "the real Alan Keyes is a Bush Republican" then he hasn't been paying attention. Ambassador Dr. Keyes is a man who has said that "Howard Phillips has the right principles" and has always been a defender of the Constitution. While I have not heard him criticize Bush by name, I have heard him criticize Bushie policies. That is fine; I don't care whether he mentions Bush's name in doing so. Policies are what's importnat, not personalities.

OK, I've thought about this a bit and here goes. I don't know what you will end up classifying me as in your infinite wisdom, but I can tell you the whimsical way you seem to know, understand and classify people does get on my nerves. I will also say that I have had concerns about this war from the beginning. I do not use those concerns to ridicule and abuse the widows and survivors of 9/11 like the cartoonist in question. I aim my comments exactly where they belong. For that reason I am going to refrain from discussing my concerns about the war and where we may be going with it in my critique of this writer.

I want to discuss the article you posted and the writer a little.

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?

Here is the rest of the Keyes quote the writer left out

But, like the faith of the holy peasant, the people's grasp of the essential realities can be astonishingly complete, and deep – even wise – when it is in a form that a cynic might find simplistic.

Keyes was making an anology, can you say that, a-n-a-l-o-g-y. That takes care of the writers first point. As for the second point, I do not see where Keyes says he believes our leaders are infallible. If I remember my politicking days it was usually the liberals or those bereft of logical and true arguments who put words into others mouths then used those words to attack.

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?

This quote was linked to the first with a missing "Thus" in Keyes article which the writer had some reason to replace with three dots and save himself a single character in his copy. 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. The missing "Thus" is essential in the Keyes article to link the ideas of the first quote and second quote together but your writer saw fit to eliminate it and attack the two parts separately.

Even standing on its own this second quote is not absolute trash just because Mr. Allen says it is. Even if FDR knew of PH in advance does that make our involvement in WWII unethical or the war unjust? I shudder to think what would have happened if we didn't get involved when we did. As much as it pains me to say it, perhaps a sacrifice to prevent a much larger sacrifice down the road is sometimes the appropriate action for a leader to take if they truly have all the correct information. Keyes also never said the images create the justification for acts of aggression but was making the point those images are essential for public support. Again, your writer was putting words into his mouth. And finally, I would like some concrete examples of our unjust assaults this writer seems to think would justify other nations in their attacks on America rather than his innuendo. He sounds to me like those liberals who were saying we deserved what happened on 9/11.

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.

Again, and I'm getting a little tired of this....here is the entire quote.

"A free people should normally suppress such activities through private moral judgment and association. Pornographers should be shunned by all, and likewise Mr. Ted Rall should have been fired immediately by those with professional authority over him, or in contractual relations with him..."

Your writer conveniently leaves out the first part of this quote where Keyes makes another analogy to decency, citizenship, and love of America. He was saying if the editors at the Times were decent, patriotic citizens they should have ceased their relationship with this heartless cartoonist. Sure we have freedom of speech but every idiot does not deserve the public megaphone. It is an editors responsibility to make decisions about what gets printed. This third misquoted bit was an attack on the editors not some attempt to claim the first amendment is mute in this case as the clever editing tries to make it seem. Again, this type of weak attack is transparent to anyone with the sense, the ability, and the desire to know for themselves what to think. It has always been one of the liberals best weapons because people just read this garbage and believe the writers selective and self serving quote is truly indicative of the individual they are attacking.

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.

This guy has been breaking the quotes down to bits he can easily wrap his attacks around all through this article so why bother to point it out here? How can we possibly take 9/11 out of the equation. The subject of Keyes article was a degrading and heartless cartoon lampooning the suffering as a result of 9/11 which was printed in the biggest newspaper in the country. As Keyes so elegantly pointed out in his article but this writer saw fit to skim over or in his desire to attack just didn't understand,

"Serious debate about the war and its purpose is crucial, and freedom to conduct this debate, in Congress and elsewhere, must be non-negotiable in all but the most genuinely extreme circumstances.

But this brutal and inhuman comic strip was not debate – it was an assault on the decent national sensibilities crucial to the war effort.

What this cartoonist did was mean and served absolutely no purpose but to make fun of the tragedy. The cartoon had nothing to do with a course of action to which the government is committed so how can Keyes statements regarding the cartoon be an attempt to suggest government should suppress such discussion. The quote I used from the Keyes article makes this point abundantly clear but your writer only seems to see what he wants to see and use whatever serves his purpose. I think anyone with a brain can see what that purpose is. I'll leave the why to the writers own conscience.

This last section also points out the difficulty your writer has retaining a track of thought for very long. He has completely lost track of the subject of the Keyes article in his last diatribe. Or maybe it is just more of that selective analysis I am usually used to seeing at GoLeft.com instead of FR.com. If you go to the writers website you will also see he calls Keyes a statist and/or corrupt which is probably the best indication of his rabid, misguided notions.

In my opinion, associating yourself with the type of analysis displayed in this article and then going around this thread proclaiming your knowledge of Keyes and classifying people on your own misguided notions is the ultimate in petty pretensiousness. Go ahead and put me in one of your categories. I haven't said a word about what I personally think of Keyes, this war, or Bush, but knowing absolutely nothing about a subject doesn't seem to stop some people from issuing opinions these days.

"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 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