In his Detroit speech of February 20, 2000, Alan Keyes, one of the last three
Republican candidates, thus explained his persistence to continue the
presidential race:
"My campaign is about grassroots. There are people
who have worked very hard over the course of the last several months here in
Michigan, to prepare for the time when I'd be able to come and work with them in
order to carry a message of integrity to the voters, that actually stands some
chance for winning for Republicans in the fall. I think, I was reading today in
the paper, a lady was asked why she voted for Bush and she said because she knew
his father. I'm beginning more and more to feel like the guy who goes in, has
the strong resume, does really well in the interview, better than anybody else
[Mr. Keyes, you are better by form and substance than Bush, but you are worse by
substance than McCain, VS], is adjudged to be the best candidate for the job,
and then it's given to somebody else because the boss knows his father. That's
great for nepotism, but when it comes to the companies that really succeed, the
people who get the big market share are the ones who hire for talent, not for
nepotism. And the Republican party has gone down this road right now, of trying
to choose somebody, not because of what he really offers in the way of ability,
but because people knew his father. That is not going to win the election in the
fall, particularly when we need someone who can address the moral challenge in
such a way as to overcome the advantage that the Democrats will get from the
strong economy."
So far, so good, with some minor exaggerative
exceptions, which he creatively develops into a mount… starting from a molehill,
of course!
"I'm in it [in the race, VS] because I think that
what I represent is best for this country and offers the only real prospect of
victory for Republicans in the fall. We have got to address the truth. This
nation is in the midst of the greatest moral crisis we have ever faced as a
people. It is affecting every area of our lives, undermining the confidence that
we need to oppose the liberal agenda of government expansion that is destroying
our liberties. In every area, control of our money, control of our schools, the
assault on second amendment rights, the surrender of our national sovereignty,
all these things are rooted in the end in our loss of moral self confidence.
That is the issue that has to be placed before the American people in the fall
to drive home the failure of moral stewardship by the Democrats in the course of
the years of the Clinton administration. G.W. Bush is a decent guy, but he
cannot carry that ball."
A little bit of a stretch, is it not? The Liberals
are also people, Mr. Keyes. The majority of the lower class, who are about 40%
of Americans, and the majority of Democrats, who are about 50% of the voters,
disagree with Alan Keyes. They do not perceive themselves "in the midst of the
greatest moral crisis," Mr. Keyes would like to see them. On the contrary, only
a tiny minority of Democrats thinks there is a moral degradation among its top
echelons, but those "sexual pranks" in the Oval Office are hardly a full fledged
moral crisis of this nation. That is why the Democratic majority stands by the
Clinton-Gore policies!
If you are a Crusader for the truth, then neither excessive optimism nor
excessive pessimism should cloud your reasoning. The love to theatrical
exaggerations leads Mr. Keyes not only to bend the truth by form but also by its
essence. Take for example his statement that, "we need to oppose the liberal
agenda of government expansion that is destroying our liberties… in every area,
control of our money, control of our schools, the assault on second amendment
rights, the surrender of our national sovereignty, all these things are rooted
in the end in our loss of moral self confidence." What does it mean ‘to stop the
government expansion’?
Mr. Keyes forgot to explain to the "grassroots," for the sake of whom he is
still running the presidential marathon, that the tree of government or
bureaucracy has two main limbs: political and economical. The political limb has
federal, state, and county branches, which further grow into the legislative,
executive, and judicial twigs, with their multitude of leaves (departments). The
economical limb has cartel, corporate, and firm branches, which further grow
into the legislative, executive, and judicial twigs, with their multitude of
leaves (departments).
If Mr. Keyes wants to stop the flow of juices into the political limb, then he
is going to dry it out. Moreover, it is not clear if the economical limb would
be still blooming, because the economical bureaucracy is heavily intertwined
with the political and depends on the latter in many foreign and domestic
spheres of life. And their division into two limbs, in the first place, was a
necessary result of social evolution and industrialization that started from the
division of labor between man and woman and now is in the stage of the class
division of labor.
If Mr. Keyes wants to stop the flow of juices only into the federal branch, then
he should understand that the bloom of state and county branches for two-three
years could lead to the demise of the federal branch. This demise would
accompany with the demise of the national defense system and the following loss
of national sovereignty. However, that would be exactly the opposite of what Mr.
Keyes wants or, at least, he told us that he wants.
Answering to Larry King in the South Carolinian
debates, Mr. Keyes stated that,
"I was very much in disagreement with our entry into
the World Trade Organization. I think we gave away a portion of our sovereignty
that we should never have surrendered to an unrepresentative body that can make
decisions according to that treaty that would have direct affect on the lives of
Americans. It violates the fundamental principle of our way of life. No
legislation without representation -- representative government. I want to see
us withdraw from the World Trade Organization and put our approach to trade back
on a footing that maximizes the results that we get for the American people. I'm
not interested in protectionism or withdrawal from the world. But I do think, if
you happen to be the sponsors of the most lucrative market in the world, that
folks ought to be paying a premium price to enter this market, or else giving us
something concrete in return that's of tangible benefit to the whole American
people, not just to a handful of international corporations."
And on what foundation does Mr. Keyes want to place
our "fair" representation in the international bureaucracy? If he thinks that it
would be "fair" that the numerical population of a country should be the base of
such a representation, then the Chinese would have four representatives against
each one of ours. If Mr. Keyes wants to base such representation on the amount
of capital of a country, then, he opens himself to accusations in racism,
chauvinism, nationalism, and whatever 'ism' you can find in a dictionary,
because he values things more than people.
Hell no, Mr. Keyes is such a staunch pro-life proponent that he refuses on these
grounds to take a bow, to drop from the race, and to endorse Mr. McCain. And
what is his pro-life reasoning?
"First of all, I think that's a perfect
illustration; this discussion of the problem we've got in the party. One
individual who doesn't really accept the pro-life position of the party
[allusion to McCain, VS], and another who says he accepts it, but then takes
positions that are inconsistent with it [allusion to Bush, VS], so when push
comes to shove he won't be able to defend it. And both willing to take at a
personal level a position that will destroy you in debate against the
Democrats."
First of all, if the party is Mr. Keyes, then, Mr.
Keyes is consistent in his above-mentioned statement. If Mr. Keyes is a humble
part of the party, then why is he arguing when the position of party on this
issue is already stable? Continuing his argument, Mr. Keyes said:
"When Al Gore stands there or Bill Bradley and looks
you in the eye, one of you or the both of you, and says, Senator McCain, you
said your daughter, that would be her decision. It would be [ultimately, with
parental and social consent, VS] up to her to decide, how on Earth can you
represent a party that would take away from every other American woman what you
would give to your own daughter? These are folks… who take a position that they
can't defend and will then go out and represent us in such a way that we get
defeated by our opponents. Isn't it time we... stopped doing this because this
doesn't make any sense?"
To Mr. Keyes, it does not make any sense, and I have
to admit that he is consistent, in his own way, when there arises a question
about exceptions in cases of rape or incest. In a radio-interview, a couple of
days ago, a woman asked him to reconcile her doubt about his consistency as a
pro-life and pro-death-penalty person. Mr. Keyes answered that it is very
simple, because, in cases of rape or incest,
"I am asking myself, who am I to judge and to kill
an innocent human being. However, in a case, of a guilty person, the society has
the right to judge and kill the guilty person."
The fallacy of Mr. Keyes can be seen with an unarmed
eye, though, I admit, it is difficult to do only with an ear. First, he
considers an innocent person from the point of view of individual, then he
considers a guilty person from the point of view of society. Thus, he is
consistent when he cannot kill an innocent baby, and he is consistent when he,
as a part of society, can kill a guilty person. Mr. Keyes’ scholasticism and
formal logic only highlights his lack of substance. That is why he did not offer
any real solution to our problems.
The real solution of the above-mentioned dichotomy is that, in both cases, the
society, in order to survive as a society, must have the prevailing right over
the right of an individual, either innocent or guilty, either green or fat.
Consequently, collectively, with all cautious procedures, the society can kill
either innocent or guilty persons if it decides that such a killing would
benefit the ruling majority. Such exceptions as rape and incest are those
precautions, which, if correctly harnessed, would be enough to protect the
essential rights of a minority of a kind and to curb the potential abuses of the
ruling majority. That is why McCain’s position on abortion is correct by form
and complies with the will and prudence of the American majority.
Mr. Keyes knew that his position is indefensible. That is why he injected his
blackness so cunningly into the South Carolinian debates that McCain’s people
swallowed his bait of the Bob Jones University issue and tried to use it against
Bush, who was necessitated to defend the "free speech" in the party. Thus, both
adversaries of Mr. Keyes found themselves in the tar pit slinging mud at each
other. Moreover, now, Mr. Keyes is hoping to feather them both and to
"enlighten" his "grassroots"
A party is a gathering if not friends, then, comrades; and comrades are supposed
not to regard each other by such superficial characteristics as the color of
their skin, or the size of their purse, their age, or their gender. What really
matter between comrades are intellect, courage, and loyalty to their common
goal, on which they base their hierarchy.
When Mr. Keyes injected his own blackness into the debates among the "comrades,"
he showed disregard to their intellect and courage. Moreover, he showed that his
goal is different from theirs.
A Democrat would say, ‘so what, our leaders use the tactics of "divide and
conquer" all the time; therefore, Mr. Keyes’ intentions are "good" and that is
what counts.’ However, you, Republicans, should remember that the Democrats used
to divide us, Republicans, not themselves. Moreover, remember that, 'the road to
Hell is paved with good intentions' … if you do not know the way to Paradise.
Now we know what is the way of Mr. Keyes, in which he wants to lead us, in order
to resolve our problems… and his way is the way into the hell of another civil
war.
I am not a presidential candidate; therefore, I can bend the 11th
Commandment of Ronald Reagan and say to Mr. Keyes – get the hell out of the
race. There is nothing left to debate with you, a cunning fraud.
03/03/00
[email protected]
Victor J. Serge created this page and revised it on 04/13/03