Alan Keyes shines at Values Voter Debate

September 19, 2007
Joshua Herring, RA analyst

I can't speak for anyone else, but for an old soldier of the cross who has been deeply concerned about our nation, watching the Values Voter Debate Monday evening was a refreshing experience. It was a grand departure from the norm for a presidential candidate's debate. As such, it strengthened my hope that America will bounce back in days to come, under the guidance of quality leaders who both understand and respect the U.S. Constitution, and who also understand God's rightful place in American government and society.

Almost immediately after Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama launched their presidential campaigns, an effort to gain support from the religious community began. Therefore, at first the American public was forced to endure sickening and disingenuous spectacles put on by the two candidates — as they sought to put forth a show of religiosity — hoping it would be mistaken for reverence, moral rectitude, and possibly even Christian commitment by some.

As I watched all this taking place, my mind drifted back to a time just a few days after the 2004 elections. At that time, in an interview on MSNBC Barack Obama was asked what he thinks are the greatest moral challenges America faces today. In response, Obama said that high unemployment and the lack of a national healthcare system were the two greatest moral dilemmas facing the nation. No kidding. I can remember thinking, "The Democratic Party has really gone over the line now. They've actually reached a point at which not only are they morally irresponsible to an extreme — their consciences are so seared that some of them no longer even understand what morals are."

Partisan scandals can make all the difference in the world

Yet, suddenly, as a result of Republican scandals in the recent past, people like Obama, Clinton, and even Republican candidate Rudy Giuliani began to pull their church clothes out of mothballs in preparation for the upcoming presidential primary season. Amidst the ensuing confusion, Hillary Clinton spoke of how only her faith could have sustained her through the trials of uncertain times in her life. At the same time, Barack Obama seemed to have forgotten something that was very telling.

He seemed to have forgotten his response when the moderator of a Keyes-Obama senatorial debate asked what he would say to the Lord, if Jesus had been standing right in front of him at the moment — at which point, with Obama's inimitable eloquence and depth, he said: "Uhhh, I don't know; I guess I'd ask if I'm goin-up-or-down." I think it safe to assume that he didn't see that one coming at all.

Nevertheless, even if Obama's memory is weak, his spiritual life is no longer the same. He has obviously undergone a deep spiritual transformation during his two years as a U.S. senator. What else would have prompted him to stand in a church before a television camera not long after that bristling, bustling, and trumpeting with great authority and bravado that any place that is God's house is "my house too"? I saw this on MSNBC shortly after Obama and Hillary began chasing each other's tails to see who will represent the Democratic Party in the 2008 presidential election.

Top tier candidates and Monday's debate: prioritization vs. matters of principle

After declaring his candidacy, Rudi Giuliani wasn't long deciding there was no point in trying to explain away a consistently liberal voting record on things such as abortion and risk having people feel that either he was dishonest, or he was a fool trying to insult their intelligence. So, after only a few attempts to deal with it by trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the public, Giuliani decided to use an approach that was new and completely unique in Republican circles. When accused of not being a true conservative, he just sort of shrugged his shoulders, and then looked at McCain to his left and Romney to his right, saying: "But then again who is a true conservative, nowadays? Don't sweat the small stuff — vote for me anyway."

The three "top tier" Republican candidates I've mentioned — along with the newly-declared Fred Thompson — opted to sit out of Monday's Values Voter Debate, which was understandable. With the exception of Thompson, they really had only two choices. They could make an appearance, end up being shredded on the issues by opponents of supposedly lesser stature, and then try to get out of the place quickly enough to avoid the citizen's committee in charge of tar and feathers. Or they could pretend the Values Voter Debate was of no true significance — at least not of sufficient import for serious candidates like themselves to take time out of their busy schedules for. These "frontrunners" knew that not everyone would be fooled by the act, but they obviously decided the stench of hypocrisy and deception would wash off more quickly and painlessly than tar and feathers and disgraceful embarrassment.

You'll notice that I didn't include Fred Thompson in my evaluation of those above, although he too missed the event. He probably could have fared better at this debate than the other three, at least to some extent, but the fact that the other three were sitting this one out made it easier for him to do so as well. Thus, he avoided the inconvenience of facing a group of "second tier" candidates, so called, with serious moral convictions and records that reflect this to varying degrees. In addition to this, Thompson wasn't unaware that one of them, Dr. Alan Keyes, is the epitome of consistent dedication to moral principle, and his debating skills are pretty much unequaled.

The best political debate I've seen since . . .

I didn't forget to finish the phrase above — I'm still considering what to say. This debate was something different. The proceedings began with a church choir singing of one of our national songs, and included was the addition of a couple of lines of their own, with lyrics about a straying nation that needs to be brought back to God and healed. I was truly touched by the choir's presentation.

The effect on me became deeper as Pastor Scarborough followed with a heartfelt prayer that not only moved me, it reminded me that James Madison, who came very close to entering the ministry before becoming a politician instead, did the largest part of his campaigning for a seat in the House of Representatives when he ran against James Monroe in local churches. It also occurred to me that the proceedings there may have opened in a way quite similar to this.

I must admit, I was just about in the mood to hear a good sermon when — to top it all off — as part of his opening comments, Dr. Alan Keyes passionately declared that America must be brought back around to God "though we die in the effort!" Then I was no longer in the mood to hear a good sermon; I was ready to preach one myself.

How did the debate go?

I wasn't surprised by anything about the debate except the ardency of the candidates themselves at times. Not only were they all trying to put their best foot forward, they knew they were standing before people who understood what was important to them and why. This provided the candidates with added liberty to say what was in their hearts, and to say it in the way they wanted to. Many of the candidates' responses to questions were very passionate, and there was no real evidence of disingenuous posturing just to make an impression on the public. The questions asked were about issues of substance, and they were asked in ways that made it clear that no candidate found guilty half-stepping would even be considered by these "values voters."

Before coming to a conclusion here, I'm going to give you a short synopsis of my impressions of the debate in general and of the candidates' performance. There was general agreement about the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. The same was true of a need to take steps to protect and define marriage as being between one man and one woman, with home and family being accepted as the most essential and foundational ingredient to a stable society.

Therefore, the general consensus was that everything possible must be done to save and protect the American family. The need to end abortion was a family-related issue that received no less support, and with the exception of Ron Paul, there was general agreement about a need to finish the Iraq campaign in a manner that protects American interests, and which does not leave America in the kind of disgrace that followed the military pullout from Southeast Asia in the seventies.

At the same time, all the candidates stood for family values, stood against the homosexual lobby, and especially against their propaganda invasion of our schools. All the candidates also stood strongly against the abuse of First Amendment religious liberties, and the increasing abuse of the right to free speech in all of its manifestations, and the forms in which it rears its ugly head.

The candidates

Former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee came across as sensible, conservative, humble, sincere, articulate, and believable, and he basically seemed to stand on the right side of the issues. However, he is a very low-key sort of individual, and in a presidential campaign, meekness can be mistaken for weakness. As long as he is given an opportunity to speak, he does well for himself.

John Cox agreed with the conservative view on basically every meat and potatoes issue covered throughout the evening. However, repetitive assertion of his skills developed as a CEO doesn't translate into anything of significance until he begins to reveal the substance of his self-declarative assertions. He impressed me more as a man trying very hard to break into big league politics by starting at the top.

Duncan Hunter, as always, stayed on the right side of issues in general, and stressed his experience in the area of national security and military matters. Hunter strikes me as being a principled man who is sincere, but who is probably not nearly as brilliant as certain others among this field of candidates.

When Ron Paul made his usual assertions about America agitating Islamic people by occupying their lands and meddling in their affairs, Duncan Hunter immediately unloaded a political RPG at short range, strongly chastising him for basing his approach to foreign policy on a method Hunter described as "blaming America first." Dr. Paul absorbed it quietly, but he didn't allow it to prevent him from coming back to this viewpoint with equal conviction and assertiveness a little later.

Although I strongly disagree with Dr. Paul on some things, I cannot but respect him as a man of character. Right or wrong, his policies are a result of principles he believes in, not capricious political winds or a desire to do whatever it takes. Moreover, he does have the courage to stand apart from the crowd to do what he believes is right. It would be difficult for me not to respect him for his courage and consistency, despite our disagreement in places.

Tom Tancredo, as was to be expected, spoke out against the NAU and similar or related things that are either taking place or looming on the horizon. This is an area in which he has invested some time to find out what's really going on, rather than just thumbing through the paperwork in congressional proceedings, and voting on the basis of severely limited information or for personal gain. Tancredo is a ma that I like more every time I see him.

Senator Brownback stated that he believes the guest worker program is an essential ingredient in legal immigration. He was co-sponsor of a 2005 bill of Ted Kennedy and John McCain's which would have given amnesty to illegal immigrants already present in America. Despite his statement last night about voting against it in the end, Brownback also voted for the 2007 immigration bill that was so hotly contested until the fight over it died down recently. I don't feel comfortable with Brownback. I tend to think he can be insincere and that his handling of the issue of immigration bears this out.

Near the end of the debate, Mike Huckabee spoke out in favor of abolishing the IRS and institution of the Fair Tax. Alan Keyes would have agreed with this, had he been given an opportunity to add to what was said. Of all the people who've supported the Fair Tax system and the abolition of IRS, Keyes is by far and away the most persuasive in his arguments that I've heard.

Finally, to underscore the irresponsibility of those Republican presidential candidates who were absent from the debate, dignitaries and special guests asked questions directed at empty podiums bearing the names Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson. There are a certain number of Americans who will not be moved by this, but it is my opinion that the failure of four candidates to show up and stand for what they claim to believe in will make a difference. This strongly implies that their policies aren't sincere and that they aren't based on sufficient conviction to make them feel obligated to meet the opposition head-on over it at a major event.

Choosing a winner

So who won the debate? Hmmm, in a field of candidates whose beliefs and convictions have so much in common, how would you decide on a winner? It seems that the straw poll conducted right after the debate declared Mike Huckabee the winner. I have already given him a good report. However, in considering the outcome of this debate, it must be remembered that, generally speaking, each candidate was given only one minute to present his thoughts on an issue.

When you consider the degree of agreement in their beliefs, this makes it a little difficult to separate them to any notable degree on the basis of so little input, unless there is something amidst it all that truly stands out. I happen to believe such a thing did indeed become manifest during the debate. Beyond what I've mentioned thus far, there was one factor that really stood out, and in order to help make my point I'm going to share a quick illustration that is a true story.

One morning in the mid-eighteenth century a neighbor happened to pass philosopher David Hume, who was rushing to get somewhere on time. Hume's neighbor asked, "Where are you going in such a hurry?" Hume responded by saying, "I'm going to hear Whitefield preach." To this the neighbor responded by saying, "I thought you don't believe in that," and Hume replied: "I don't; but he does!"

Sometimes what makes the difference is as much how we say things as it is what we say. On the basis of this principle, there are a few things that I felt added notable value and weight to the performance of one of the candidates. During the Values Voter Debate Monday, there were numerous statements made and stands taken that would qualify to be described as "bold." However, none of them even approached the opening statement of Alan Keyes, in which he poured his heart out, passionately declaring that America must be turned back towards the Creator "though we die in the effort!"

Added to this, among all the things that were said and all the stands taken, nothing was said or suggested that would even come close to requiring the kind of courage involved in Alan Keyes' declaration that upon being elected President of the United States, he would "immediately" issue an Executive Order putting an end to abortion in this nation. I've been following Dr. Keyes long enough to know this wasn't just campaign rhetoric.

Keyes was making a promise to the American people — one he intends to keep. I haven't the slightest doubt that given the opportunity, Alan Keyes will do exactly as he said, and I've never known any other national leader with the courage to take such a bold step. If previous presidents had such courage, millions of lives could have been saved. Such a move would have forced the Supreme Court to revisit Roe v. Wade. Even the members of the Court who favored abortion just as much as admitted that the Roe decision was flawed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and another examination of this Supreme Court debacle would almost certainly have prevented decades of the sadistic slaughter of our children.

A cut above the rest

It's worth noting that the debate was divided into three segments. The opening segment was one in which questions were asked and each candidate was given one minute to answer them. In the second segment, questions were asked for which a simple yes or no answer was required. Then in the third segment, people came forward to ask specific questions of specific candidates — and knowing that things were winding down towards the finish, each candidate was doing his best to make an impression. In order to help make the point I'm driving at, I'm going to share one more short story. This time it is something from my own experiences.

The person who was the closest thing to a mentor that I ever had in my ministry was a man named C.O. Maness. People would ask him a question about something scriptural or spiritual, and without any notes, preparation, hesitation, or reservation, this man could speak for as long as needed to make a point. Not infrequently, people were moved to tears by the sincerity, depth, and the intensity of his words. Once when I was a teen, someone asked him a question, and after seeing much that was of great value, substance, and depth virtually pouring out of him in such a magnificent presentation, I asked: "How do you do that?" Brother Maness looked at me with absolute simplicity and sincerity to say: "Son, this is my life."

The things he taught weren't just the result of a lot of learning. He taught what he did because it was something he lived — things he believed in so strongly he would put his life on the line over them without a need to even think it over. There was nothing to work on or work up when Brother Maness spoke of such things. It was simply what he believed, what was in his heart, and what he knew to be true. Even other ministers of notable stature and status were quick to say that Brother Maness was one of a kind — "a cut above the rest."

Since I've been following Alan Keyes, I've seen him speak many times, always off the cuff without notes, and yet always with great eloquence. As this has been taking place, I began to realize that he has something in common with Brother Maness that is very special. Brother Maness was who and what he was simply as a result of walking out the call of God on his life. This molded and shaped him until his speaking wasn't just a matter of sharing knowledge. His words came directly out of his heart with great conviction and authority. It wasn't just what he believed; it was a product of who he was.

As I've followed Alan Keyes, I've seen that very same quality and kind of leader in him. Dr. Keyes is who he is as a result of the call of God on his life. Like Brother Maness, Alan Keyes has been specially molded and shaped for what he does by a divine hand. This is evident as he speaks of what he believes in, of what is in his heart, of what he knows to be true.

Alan Keyes doesn't allow a desire for popularity or any other human factor to alter those things or the way he presents them. Although Dr. Keyes has one of the finest political minds of our day, he speaks directly out of his heart with great sincerity. It isn't just what he believes, it is a result of his love of country and desire to serve; it is a result of who he is, and his desire to please the One who has called him to this service. Alan Keyes has lived — for that very reason — consistently, both in and out of public office. The reason I recognize this so clearly in him is that I've seen it before. He too is a man of conviction, and of vision — a cut above the rest.

I thought Dr. Keyes' closing comments in the debate were so dramatically inspiring, it was awesome. You would have to hear them and witness the passion yourself to grasp what I'm trying to tell you. If you haven't seen a copy of the debate, at the very first opportunity you should do so. By the time Dr. Keyes finishes his closing comments, it should be easy for you to see why I say he won the debate. Don't take my word for it — listen and see for yourself

Note: You can purchase a DVD of the debate quite inexpensively at www.valuesvoterdebate.com

© Joshua Herring