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
Both of you might like to add to your consideration these words from the a column by Keyes this month at WND.
****
"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."
***
Tuor, you might consider Lincoln's own defense of the Constitutionality and wisdom of his suspension of Habeas Corpus and his undertaking other measures to stop Copperhead sedition.
I can hunt them down for you if you like.
If you are concerned about the context of the quote you responded to, go checkout the whole column at worldnetdaily.
Whether you like or support Keyes is quite secondary; he is not running for any office; he is addressing you and me as a fellow citizen, and the real question is what we should, or should not, think and do about national resolve and understanding in wartime.
Regards,
Richard F.
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.