Disagree -- Savings and Loan ring any bells?
Here is copy of Dr. Keyes recent Press Club address that may be of interest.
National Press Club transcript
National Press Club, Washington, D.C.
- February 7, 2000
Ambassador Alan Keyes:
Thank you. Thank you very much.
I find myself called upon today, I think, to speak in two guises. I
always try to speak as an American, and I will also be speaking today a
little bit as a Republican, as we are in a primary season. And the choice
that is facing voters right now is a choice about who shall be the
standard bearer of our two major parties. As I am a little bit involved
in one side of that race, I've obviously done a little bit of thinking
about the situation in which we find ourselves politically today. And it
is there that I wish to begin, because I think that by reflecting on it a
little bit, we will be able to understand the real nature of the political
challenge that faces the Republican Party, but that also, then, brings us
face to face with what I think is the overall challenge facing our
country.
One fact that probably hasn't gone unnoticed by anyone lately is that we
are in the midst of pretty good economic times. As a matter of fact, many
would dispute the term "pretty good." We are in the midst of great
economic times. I am not one of those people who goes into the back room
and wishes bad times on my country so that I or my political party may
prosper. And therefore, I have to take the good times we are in as good
news. Even though, realistically speaking, good times like this in a
presidential election year usually mean an advantage for the incumbent
party in the White House. That would, of course, be the Democrats. It
would, of course, be Bill Clinton. And I see no reason why this election
year will be any different.
That being the case, the better the times, the harder the challenge for
the Republican Party. Despite exorbitant polls taken months out that
showed G. W. Bush or some other Republican beating the Democrats, I've
never believed in any of it. Since the underlying truth is that the
American people, generally speaking, don't kick you out when they think
you have done a reasonably good job. Unlike, say, the British at the end
of World War II. You remember that. After Churchill had led them through
the war and inspired them against the terrible threat of the Nazi menace,
the first thing they did when the war was over was kick him out.
Americans are more understanding than that. They actually need a reason
to kick you out. Usually that reason will consist of the fact that they
think that you have contributed somehow adversely to their economic well
being. They'll kick you out for that. If they get the impression that
you have been a poor steward of our national security interests, botched
up a war, or otherwise embarrassed us in terms of our ability to defend
ourselves and our interests - that's a good reason; they'll kick you out.
If you happen to be like Jimmy Carter, and you botch up the economy AND
embarrass us in national security, the American voter will go into the
voting booth - they will probably wish they could kick you out twice - but
they'd only kick you out once anyway. But they will still kick you out.
The point being, however, that if you haven't done those things; if you
happen to be a party that is holding on to the White House at a time when
the nation enjoys wonderful prosperity, and we are creating more
millionaires than usual, and the stock market is going through the roof,
and the prospects, materially, for most people in the country, seem pretty
good - at the very least I would suggest they are not going to hold that
against you. And at most they will probably even let you take a little
credit for it, even though somewhere in their heart of hearts they will
understand that the credit is actually due to them. But Americans have
gotten used, I think, to sharing the credit for their achievements with
politicians, since that is the way that politicians generally function,
right? - "Where are my people going, so that I may lead them?"
And the corollary of that, of course, is "What have my people accomplished
lately, so that I may take credit for it."
All things being equal, therefore, I think that you would have to be
living in another reality not to expect that the Democrats would have an
advantage going into the November election. Especially if folks go into
the voting booth and are voting on the basis of their sense of their
economic well being. Even, by the way, if they are voting on their
perception of America's position in the world. And this comes from one
who has been not a particular fan, and never will be, of the Clinton
administration. I actually think it has been an administration that has
been more ineffective, incompetent, and treacherous with respect to our
national security than any I have seen in our lifetime. And as I was no
big admirer of the Carter administration in that regard, that's saying
something.
But the thing about the national security issues, in a world where we are
no longer facing universal pressure from an adversary who punishes us for
our mistakes, is that it takes a while for those chickens to come home to
roost. And by November of this year, we will not be hearing the clucking
of those chickens. Not yet. Give it a few years, and we certainly will,
in ways that I think will greatly dismay our public. But not by November.
So if folks are going into the voting booth and sorting things out on the
basis of our present international position, or our national security
issues, I don't think that is going to hurt the Democrats either.
All things being equal, therefore - and I know that this will seem
unbecoming, coming from a Republican; but see, I have this bad habit.
Partisan or no partisan, when I look at a fact, I try to point it out.
And the truth of the matter is that right now all of those material
factors cut in favor of the Democrats, and the Republicans have an uphill
battle in this election year convincing the American people that a change
is required on those grounds.
However, there is more than a little bit of hope for a Republican victory.
Because looking back over the last several years - and I, of course, have
the advantage of doing this from a position where I had spent several
years prior to that talking about the issues of moral concern to the
country - I think back over the last several years, and lo and behold, I
have been going around this time talking, of course, to Republican
audiences and others and guess what? I have no problem whatsoever now
convincing people that America is in the midst of a great moral crisis
that affects our institutions at the highest levels. I wonder why?
Actually, I think all of you could guess why. We have but to say two
words and most Americans are put in mind of that moral crisis, and of the
impact that it has had on our national institutions, on our national
pride. We have been through a degrading and shameful period, and for most
Americans the pain of it was far more substantive than I think, generally
speaking, we give credit for.
Because most Americans love their country. And I think most of us are
kind of proud of it too. We look back on our heritage, particularly in
the course of the 20th century, and we see a nation that in many ways has
answered the call of decency and of justice, has fought the great battles
against tyranny and oppression, has stood in the world for something
that - with some blemishes here and there, but nonetheless, on balance -
moved things in the right direction. And was something that, when you
mention it to your children, or show them the flag, or talk about the role
that you may have played in it, you can do so with pride.
I think that sense of a justifiable, not overweening, but still clear
pride, is precisely what has been challenged in the course of the last
several years. And what I have found is that many Americans actually
grieved deeply because of the perception that we have somehow lost the
luster of that moral dignity for which this nation has stood, and has
deservedly stood, in the course of the 20th century. It's not a good
feeling when we have to be ashamed of the President of the United States.
It's a painful feeling when there are aspects of his tenure we feel loath
to speak of in front of our minor children. It is a painful experience
when we know that on that account, the aspiration to serve the nation,
even at the highest level, has been dulled. For what dulls that aspiration
is a symptom of what dulls citizenship in general in this society, and the
loss of a sense of commitment to that citizenship actually is one of the
things that portends the end of our republic.
And that's why I think that, all things being equal, the Republicans could
actually look at this upcoming election with a sense of confidence.
Because there has, in fact, been an egregious failure of moral stewardship
on the part not only of the President, but on the part of the party that
circled the wagons around his lies, his corruption, his betrayal of oath
and conscience. If the American people go into the voting booth thinking
about that failure of moral stewardship, then the Democrats - in spite of
economy and everything else - will be tossed out of the White House on
their ear. And they will deserve, and have indeed deserved, to be tossed
out.
And I think that that is at least in part because Americans are not as
stupid as some people think we are. We know that the great prosperity,
the strength, the victory in wars, the overcoming of enemies - all of it
was the result of the moral heritage, the moral strength, the moral
foundations, that allowed this country to persevere when the material
factors were not in our favor; to get through depressions, and wars for
which we were not readily prepared, to fight enemies that, at times,
seemed already to have engrossed the earth with their power. We did not
give up, we were able to persevere, because we looked back upon a moral
heritage that gave us strength: a moral heritage that gave us the
confidence, in the end, to understand that though in a general kind of way
we are probably no better or worse than most human beings, in terms of our
national identity, and our national aspirations, there is much that this
nation has stood for, and much that it has achieved, to help mankind both
articulate and reach toward the better aspiration of its moral nature.
If, as a party, you squander that moral heritage; if, as a party, you show
no regard for that true basis of our strength - then that too becomes an
egregious reason for the American people to toss you out. The question,
therefore, that faces the Republicans right now is whether they are going
to be able to articulate for the American people the nature and
significance of the moral challenge that faces us, so that by the time
folks go into that voting booth there will be a sufficient number of them
convinced that the moral crisis is relevant, and that its political
consequences are intolerable, and that therefore the Democrat stewardship
of the White House must be rejected.
That's going to require, by the way, something that you don't ordinarily
see in politics. It is going to require that someone stand forward and,
with a kind of boldness that has been egregiously lacking in dealing with
these issues up to know, is able to present them, both in terms of
principle and application, in a way that makes them relevant to the
conscience and choice of the people. On this hinges the prospect for
victory of the Republican Party, in my view.
And that means that the folks who are part of the electorate choosing the
Republican standard bearer had better wake up from their delusions. Those
people who are trotting out folks with big names, and this kind of money
and that, and yet who have nothing in their background or experience that
prepares them to meet the moral challenge of this election year, and to
articulate it in a way that the American people understand. As a matter
of fact, they are so far from understanding it that some, in spite of
their record and background, have no sense whatsoever of the relevance of
these issues.
The main example of that, in my opinion, at the moment, is the fellow who
was sort of vaulted into the lead, they tell me - I don't know, because
these polls have been so wrong about who is leading what - John McCain.
Apparently he got real comfortable on a bus trip in New Hampshire with his
buddies in the press, and some of the folks there made him feel so much at
ease that when he was asked a question about abortion - he was asked what
he would say if his 15 year old daughter came to him and said that she was
pregnant, and she was going to have an abortion. And his response - now
verified, apparently, by the transcript; he did try to pretend for a while
it was taken out of context. Not a good pretense for this
"straight-talking" Senator, but what can I say? - his answer was that he
would try to counsel her, and he would tell her that he thought that this
wasn't such a great idea, and it was wrong, and all of this. But at the
end of the day, it was her decision, her choice.
Now that, as we would all recognize who understand the nature of this
debate, is the classic so-called "pro-choice" position. It is the one
rejected, in principle and practice, by the platform and the majority of
people in the Republican Party. But he took that stand, and when he was
sort of beat up about it for a little while, he decided that it would be a
family conference instead of his daughter's decision. I don't know which
was more ironic and amusing to me. I mean, after all, if your daughter
comes to you, as I pointed out to him in one of the debates, and says,
"Dad, I want to kill grandma for the inheritance," I doubt that you would
counsel her that this was not really the world's best idea, and that
personally you oppose the idea of murdering grandma for the inheritance,
but if when it came right down to it, she felt inclined that way, it was
her decision.
I don't know how your daughter would feel about that way of approaching
the issue, but I'm pretty sure how grandma would feel. And if you then
went on, when you were caught out a little bit, to suggest that, "Oh,
yeah, she's a minor child; therefore we have a family conference about
it," I'm not sure that would be terribly helpful. So you gather the
family together, and what are you going to do, take a vote? Shall we vote
it up or down, that we kill grandma for the inheritance.
The reason that you are laughing, of course, is that the very idea is
absurd. You are laughing because you understand that there are certain
issues of moral choice where you don't look at people and pretend that
they in fact have a choice. You look at them and you say - particularly
to your children - and you just say, "No; you don't do that. Not allowed.
Not done. You step across the line in a way that is totally
unacceptable."
Now, there are folks, I guess - I call them the pro-abortion folks - who
wouldn't agree with that. There is no one truly pro-life, however, who
would not agree with what I just said. Because the pro-life principle is
clear: that child's life in the womb is not a matter for human choice,
because as a matter of American principle it is understood that the right
to life, along with our other unalienable rights, is based not on human
choice, but on the choice of our Creator, God. A power beyond our power,
a will beyond our will.
And you will excuse me, I guess, if I take that very seriously. I
understand that for some people it is just a rhetorical thing - "Weren't
those nice words that Jefferson penned?" Any black American who thinks
that is apparently unfamiliar with the history of both oppression and
deliverance of black people in America. The oppression done in disregard
of that great Declaration principle, and the deliverance coming about when
the conscience of the nation was moved to understand that those are not
just words, and that they must be applied in such a way that we understand
that whether the Constitution is interpreted by some court, or the law is
passed by some majority, in a way that denies to any human being their
God-given rights, that is not lawful; that is not right; that is not just;
and it should not stand.
And if I, or anyone else, would claim that that had to be the case with
respect to black folks who were enslaved, I surely think we must stand
today and make the same argument on behalf of the vulnerable, the
voiceless, the helpless babes in the womb.
It is that kind of understanding of principle, that application, if you
like, of the great principles of America's moral heritage, that must be
the key to approaching this election year. So that Americans understand
that the moral component of our way of life is not incidental; it is
essential. Lose it, and we lose the only common ground for the American
identity.
We are an enormously diverse people, of every race, color, creed and kind.
We have gathered folks here from all the four corners of the globe. We
cannot claim a common ethnic stock, a common racial heritage; even, these
days, it is unclear that common language will bind us. But one thing is
clear - that we stand on common ground of our moral aspiration, that we
stand on common ground of our claim to human rights and dignity, which we
have offered to all those people, from every corner of the globe. Not
because it is our choice, but because it was understood by our Founders to
be God's will.
If we back away now from that moral heritage, we lose the ground both of
our moral identity, our common ground as a people, but we also lose the
ground of our discipline as a people. For in the end, our confidence that
our rights will not be abused comes about, at least in part, because the
same authority on the basis of which we claim those rights must be
respected in our exercise of those rights. If we lose that sense, then we
rightly lose confidence in principle in the ability of this free people to
sustain freedom without terrible and hurtful consequences.
For at the end of the day, freedom is a curse if it means the ability to
do whatever you please, whatever you like. If it is unbridled greed, and
lust, and passion, and interest without check, it is a curse. The
blessings of liberty are to be derived from an understanding of freedom
constrained and disciplined by the knowledge that the same higher power
and authority on the basis of which we claim our rights and dignity must
be respected as we use them, in such a way that we respect in others what
we claim for ourselves, that we grant to others what we would seek for
ourselves, that we do not deny to others what, by the grant of that
Creator, God, we may lay claim to for ourselves.
This is the great crisis, I believe, of our nation's life today. Not an
economic one, not an international one. It is the crisis of heart and
spirit which Lincoln and our Founders predicted would be the crisis of our
republic's survival. We either get back to the ground of that moral
principle on which the republic is based, or we shall lose it ALL.
And that doesn't mean, by the way, that we won't be prosperous, and
America won't be strong, and all of this. I keep trying to remind people
that some of the most prosperous periods in the history of the world were
presided over by some of the worst despotisms in the history of mankind.
Like the Roman Empire, which strung together several prosperous centuries,
in fact, for the part of the world that it dominated. Only at the
sacrifice of human decency, dignity, and so forth.
This is not supposed to be our goal. We Americans are supposed to offer
the world an understanding that, yes, incidentally has meant strength, and
wealth and prosperity - but at its heart is about achieving the better
moral destiny of the human race. The knowledge that it is possible, in
spite of all our differences, to come together, under a constitution of
moral principle, to respect the rights and dignity of human beings, and to
build a society that, because it is founded on that just foundation,
offers hope that mankind, in spite of all our frailties, will yet achieve
the better destiny marked out for us by the Creator, when first He said,
"Let Us make man."
It is this hopeful future into which we can proceed, but only if we are
willing, now, to turn back to the moral ground that offers us that hope.
If we do not, then we shall, as Lincoln feared, meanly lose this last,
best hope. But if we do, then we can enter the new millenium with the
confidence that the same light of hope which has beaten back the shadow of
tyranny once, twice and thrice in this century will still be there to
encourage and enspirit the forces of dignity around the world in the
millenium to come.
Thank you very much. |
