Everyone has the answers: but what is the question?
November 3, 2007
Joshua Herring, RA analyst
At the age of ten, I watched a television episode that had a quite an impact on my life. The story was about a peace loving, philosophical Chinese monk caught between two opposing factions on the verge of losing control. One of the groups was made up of people who considered the monk a friend. Those on the other side were simply townspeople he knew of.
The only reason the monk got involved was a desire to see the two sides resolve their differences without any killing. As time passed and tensions escalated, tempers flared with increasing passion. At one point, the monk even went so far as passive endurance of physical abuse to prevent more trouble from starting. As a result, a woman who had been his friend turned her back on him over what she perceived to be his overwhelming cowardice.
During most of the episode, the situation continued to deteriorate, and confrontations became increasingly dangerous. Then at a point when the killing the monk sought to prevent became inevitable, he sprang into action. As it turned out, the monk had been working all along to bring about the set of circumstances he was dealing with by the time he made his move at which point he carried out a well-executed plan that was timed to perfection.
In doing so, the monk settled the dispute with a plan that was amicable to people on both sides, in an exercise of wisdom and depth no one even realized he was capable of. At the same time, he dealt with the most dangerous people decisively to prevent any further violence from erupting. This was accomplished in an impressive display of courage and ability that dispelled every notion of his cowardice.
The moment the battle was over, the woman who had rejected the monk ran up to him to ask, "If you can fight like this, why you didn't act sooner? And why didn't you defend yourself when they were beating you?!" In response, the monk said something that made a deep impression on me, in spite of my youth. He said, "It is because I seek not to know all the answers, but rather what is the question."
My purpose
I've recently heard people say they are critical of the timing of Alan Keyes' candidacy for president, which he announced in mid-September. The purpose of this article is thus two-fold.
First, in view of the level of corruption that runs rampant among American politicians today, I hope to help those who aren't familiar with Alan Keyes to better understand him. I also want to assure them that he is genuine. If Alan Keyes says he will do something, you can count on it, regardless of how unpopular it may be among the political elites. But if one fails to think deeply enough to ask themselves the right questions, they might misunderstand the things he does.
Alan Keyes has been the subject of venomous lies and unjustifiable bad press in recent years. He has been snubbed by the liberal media during political campaigns. He has been subjected to harsh treatment and blatant betrayal by people in positions of influence and power among those in his own party. They are people who've sought to stifle a voice of integrity and deep understanding of government, and even deeper moral convictions, lest their own lack of political wisdom, understanding, and integrity be exposed by his shining example.
We are embroiled in a presidential race in which all of the above is happening. I want to assure those who don't know him well that while no human being is perfect, it is no exaggeration to say that Alan Keyes is a man whose principles are never violated for the sake of political advantage. Those who have followed Keyes know he has paid a great price to retain his integrity, despite working in a realm in which it is extremely difficult for a truly honest man to keep his head above water.
For those who are critical of Dr. Keyes for waiting until September 14th to announce his candidacy, and for the overall campaign strategy he is employing please allow me to suggest that you don't jump ship over these things. As the monk in the television episode taught his female friend, things aren't always what they seem to be on the surface. It seems that everyone thinks they know all the answers. Yet, so few actually come to a place of seeking truth above all other things in asking themselves . . .
What is the question?
I must admit that I was beginning to grow a little impatient myself by the time Dr. Keyes announced. But after what I thought was an innocent comment I made one day, Dr. Keyes informed me that he doesn't recognize the idea that "he waited so long to declare his candidacy." I was reminded that until this election season, it wasn't unusual for presidential candidates to wait until after Labor Day the year before the election to declare their candidacy.
At that point, although I realized there was truth in what he said, I still wondered if this was truly "the" question . . . "Oh, me of little faith." After more prayer and further reflection, I began to realize something important. Whether Dr. Keyes wins the Republican nomination or not, there is a matter of greater significance that was an important factor as he made decisions concerning this election.
Political pundits weigh in on development of the 2008 primary season
Shortly after the first of the year 2007, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama swung into action, launching their presidential campaigns almost immediately. At the time, I wondered about the wisdom of doing so, and I was in good company. People like Tim Russert of "Meet the Press" and other well known political pundits were wondering the same thing for a couple of reasons:
(1) The longer you extend a primary season, the harder it is to sustain the momentum needed to carry a candidate through to victory.
(2) Knowing this to be true would inevitably tempt party moguls in various states to tinker with the date of their presidential preference primaries.
Logic tells us that one of the reasons for the latter would be concern that grassroots candidates will have time to get their message out, and end up overcoming the natural advantage afforded "top-tier" candidates. These media-promoted candidates often ride a gossamer wave of popularity right into the nomination, before common citizens realize there were truly valid options available who were worthy of more serious consideration than they received.
Was concern about other candidates gaining an advantage by entering the race so far ahead of time the only valid consideration? Or even the most important consideration? Was this truly "the" question Alan Keyes should have been asking himself as he considered how to respond to the way the campaign season was shaping up? Or could it be that to have allowed this to dictate his decisions would have required a shallow, shortsighted, and selfish perception of the situation that totally ignores the priority issue?
Tim Russert weighs in on the situation
Sometimes, important things just aren't obvious on the surface. If we slow down and think things through carefully, there is often much that comes to our attention that would be missed otherwise. When I speak of "the" question, I'm talking about truly understanding what the priority issue is, and giving considerations involving "the" question priority as decisions are made. In this case, the point is this: If we emphasize something besides just winning at all costs, and consider principles and traditions that are extremely important for good reason, there is indeed an issue of greater substance and import that comes to light. This is an issue that has for the most part been ignored during this primary season.
Just the other day, Tim Russert noted that both the state of Iowa and New Hampshire might actually move their primary/caucus dates forward to December of 2007. Then he exclaimed, "This is no way to run a presidential election!" Russert was right on target. This game of political one-upmanship is destroying the 2008 election process. Most rational people are beginning to come to the same conclusion by now. Selfish interest has ruled almost completely, both among the candidates and also within the structure and workings of many state governments. The people involved in these decisions have exhibited absolutely no regard for sound principles, protocols, or the good of this nation.
What matters most: principles or personal agendas?
I believe one of the reasons Alan Keyes has gone about things as he has is because his conscience wouldn't allow him to become part of the problem. Should Keyes have done something that might serve his short-term interests better, but which he knew would add to a serious problem he saw developing? Or should he have sought to be more responsible than that seeking to establish something of greater long-term value, even if it must come at the risk of hindering the accomplishment of a short-term objective?
One of Alan Keyes' trademarks has been strong personal character. There was therefore more for him to consider than just trying to make certain no one got the jump on him in the race for the presidency. How far may one hope to go without doing damage to things of great value and import, while placing personal ambitions above sound principles? Now I know some of you are thinking, "This may be true, but there are times when a situation calls for exceptional action."
If you are one of those people, I can agree with you to at least some extent. But we can't afford to ignore important factors that are becoming clearly evident and approach things from what we know to be a destructive perspective. Who can deliberately do something more self-serving than beneficial, knowing the future of an entire nation is at stake? Who indeed: we have nearly an entire field of candidates made up of such people.
What am I talking about? I'm talking about a political process being hijacked by people with less regard for sound principles and national stability than for personal ambitions and political agendas. The result is that a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" is turning into a hegemony made up of political and societal elites, backed by corporate donors and private interest lobbies.
If anyone doubts that these things were on the mind of Alan Keyes as he considered his decision to run for the Oval Office, proof is readily available. Just read what he has written about this problem in a series published during the period leading up to his declaration of candidacy titled "The Crisis of the Republic." This series can be found on the front page at alankeyes.com.
The situation as it now stands
A discussion board is available as a meeting place for people supporting Alan Keyes and "America's Revival," and as a tool to help them organize efforts on behalf of the cause. Recently, someone entered the discussion saying:
I spoke with an "election specialist" at the Michigan Secretary of State Office over a month before the new information on ballot access requirements was released. She told me the decision wasn't even going to be made and they weren't even going to post the new information until after what turned out to be the new deadline to file for ballot access.
One would naturally assume that the information would be released at least a little before related deadlines. Yet, just as I was about to contact the elections representative again, I was notified that the Michigan state GOP was excluding Dr. Keyes from ballot access. Not only had Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (along with the legislature) moved the primary date from February 26th to January 15, 2008, she changed the rules pertaining to qualifications for ballot access.
Michigan state officials vested sole power for determination of issues regarding ballot access in state political parties. Then upon releasing news of this decision on Sept. 4, 2007, the parties were given until Sept. 11, 2007, to submit the names of their "potential presidential candidates" to the Secretary of State. In other words, although Dr. Keyes announced his candidacy before the date I had been given to check back with the Secretary of State Office, the Michigan GOP, whose director is a staunch Mitt Romney supporter, excluded Dr. Keyes from the upcoming primary debate in their state. The excuse given was that he missed the deadline for ballot access.
This put Dr. Keyes in an almost impossible situation. His only hope of getting on the ballot would be for his supporters to gather nearly 12,000 petition signatures of registered Republican voters in the state of Michigan in a very short time and that isn't where it all ended.
The new requirements and deadlines weren't announced until September. Yet, despite the fact that the old rules prohibited the gathering of petition signatures before Oct. 1, 2007, the starting date to begin gathering petition signatures was moved retroactively back to August 15th, and the new deadline set for October 23rd. (The old deadline was Dec. 14th.) The new starting date of the period designated for gathering signatures was retroactively set before the new law was signed and the information released. This took away nearly half of the time allotted to gather petition signatures while appearing to do the reverse!
A political process corrupted from end to end
After having been invited, Alan Keyes was un-invited to the Oct. 25 AARP debate. It seems that John McCain didn't want him there. Dr. Keyes was also excluded from the Republican primary debate in Orlando, Florida. This was done, supposedly, on the basis of his failure to qualify by virtue of the results of polls in which his name wasn't even included. In a response, the Keyes campaign stated:
After dancing around the issue at first, their last stated position on the matter was that there were already too many people speaking to make time for Dr. Keyes. Then they turned around and allowed Senator Brownback time in the podium after he announced that he was withdrawing from the race. They also had a long list of speakers who weren't candidates, some of whom I've had never even heard of. Yet they refused to bump even one of them to make room for a valid candidate of Alan Keyes' stature and popularity.
And at the last minute, they made room for Rudy Giuliani to speak. These people are afraid of Dr. Keyes, because he is one of the most brilliant, articulate, and capable defenders of conservative values that has ever come along. Their real problem with Alan Keyes is simple. He will not bow to partisan politics or adopt a policy just to please people of power and influence he will stand for the truth at all costs. The problem is, Keyes isn't putting forth some watered-down version of conservatism like that which is being foisted upon the American people by other candidates today.
So what are we to make of it all?
This brings me to my main point. What is a presidential candidate in America to do today if he doesn't happen to be one of the media darlings, or one who will cow-tow to partisan policy lines? This is what is required to be anointed by the "powers that be" in the Republican Party. For years, concerned citizens have tried one approach after another in dealing with this problem. They have tried everything from third party candidacies to financing an independent candidacy, sometimes largely out of their own pockets.
Over the past few weeks, there has been so much attention in the news media regarding candidates who've been the strongest fundraisers. The media asserted that without their influence and the ability to raise nearly $100 million just to get through the primary season, a candidate has little chance of winning. This has created a situation in which the only ones who succeed are those willing to cater to political power brokers and bow to party politics. Alan Keyes has always been aware that this is what he is up against. But rather than compromise his convictions and ignore things that political education and experience have taught him, Keyes has stood tall and made a stand for what is true, regardless of the price to be paid.
In the state of Illinois, late in the campaign season, the Republican Party worked to convince Dr. Keyes to pull up stakes and move from Maryland to represent the GOP in the 2004 U.S. Senate race. Then after his arrival in Chicago, representatives of the Republican Party approached Dr. Keyes about his campaign strategy. They wanted him to ignore what he knows are vital core issues, and approach his campaign from a completely different perspective. When Keyes failed to march in step with the beat of their drum, the party abandoned him completely, making a scapegoat of him.
How the political process has been hijacked
The Republican Party has long been ignoring truly valid conservative candidates, lending its influence and support to people of limited honor and questionable character, instead. As a result, the American people haven't been given a fair chance to see or know who would actually be the best candidate.
The American political process, which was established to facilitate this very purpose, has become so corrupt the American people don't really have a choice regarding who leads them anymore. At this point, the situation is one in which for all intents and purposes powerful people in positions of influence, not all of whom are even American citizens, sit back, thinking: "The public can vote for anyone they like . . . as long as we control the choices."
What is the solution to this problem? What can be done to put power back into the hands of ordinary citizens? Shouldn't this be the objective of any real conservative candidate who loves America and has concerns that run deeper than their own personal ambitions? Only a true spiritual revival of conscience and conduct, combined with a revival of truly American political principles, can accomplish what needs to be done. Grassroots conservatives must raise an army of people of sound values who will work together to overcome media blockage, partisan power, and the influence of powerful corporate interests.
Such a revival is in the offing at this time. "America's Revival" is the name given to the grassroots movement founded by Dr. Alan Keyes as part of his campaign strategy, for the purpose of accomplishing this objective. In my response to the person who railed against the Keyes organization at the discussion board, I went on to say:
Playing by rules made by people who care little about anything but winning an election isn't what is needed this crucial political season. Announcing the Keyes candidacy sooner to avoid being beaten to the punch wouldn't have been much of a solution. The thing Dr. Keyes is doing here, as is so often the case with his political policies, is deeper and more substantial than the things being said and done by others who possess little understanding.
This is only one of the reasons I believe that supporting Alan Keyes is the right thing to do. There are many other reasons I support him, ranging from his specific policy positions and proven track record of consistent conservatism, to his refusal to be compromised at any cost. President Bush started out talking the talk. Now we need someone with political understanding and expertise working on the problems who actually walks the talk. We need someone whose word can be trusted. More than any other candidate in this Republican presidential primary season and any other politician of our time since Ronald Reagan this would be Dr. Alan Keyes.
I think it significant that Dr. Keyes served in key positions in the Reagan administration. During the time when Ronald Reagan was governor of California, the Russian KGB was studying Reagan, thinking he would soon ascend to the presidency. At the bottom of a report they turned in, it said this: "The Reagan word and deed are the same." No wonder President Reagan appreciated and trusted Alan Keyes so much they had that in common.
Thus, it should be no surprise that President Reagan said the following of Dr. Keyes:
Joshua Herring, RA analyst
At the age of ten, I watched a television episode that had a quite an impact on my life. The story was about a peace loving, philosophical Chinese monk caught between two opposing factions on the verge of losing control. One of the groups was made up of people who considered the monk a friend. Those on the other side were simply townspeople he knew of.The only reason the monk got involved was a desire to see the two sides resolve their differences without any killing. As time passed and tensions escalated, tempers flared with increasing passion. At one point, the monk even went so far as passive endurance of physical abuse to prevent more trouble from starting. As a result, a woman who had been his friend turned her back on him over what she perceived to be his overwhelming cowardice.
During most of the episode, the situation continued to deteriorate, and confrontations became increasingly dangerous. Then at a point when the killing the monk sought to prevent became inevitable, he sprang into action. As it turned out, the monk had been working all along to bring about the set of circumstances he was dealing with by the time he made his move at which point he carried out a well-executed plan that was timed to perfection.
In doing so, the monk settled the dispute with a plan that was amicable to people on both sides, in an exercise of wisdom and depth no one even realized he was capable of. At the same time, he dealt with the most dangerous people decisively to prevent any further violence from erupting. This was accomplished in an impressive display of courage and ability that dispelled every notion of his cowardice.
The moment the battle was over, the woman who had rejected the monk ran up to him to ask, "If you can fight like this, why you didn't act sooner? And why didn't you defend yourself when they were beating you?!" In response, the monk said something that made a deep impression on me, in spite of my youth. He said, "It is because I seek not to know all the answers, but rather what is the question."
My purpose
I've recently heard people say they are critical of the timing of Alan Keyes' candidacy for president, which he announced in mid-September. The purpose of this article is thus two-fold.First, in view of the level of corruption that runs rampant among American politicians today, I hope to help those who aren't familiar with Alan Keyes to better understand him. I also want to assure them that he is genuine. If Alan Keyes says he will do something, you can count on it, regardless of how unpopular it may be among the political elites. But if one fails to think deeply enough to ask themselves the right questions, they might misunderstand the things he does.
Alan Keyes has been the subject of venomous lies and unjustifiable bad press in recent years. He has been snubbed by the liberal media during political campaigns. He has been subjected to harsh treatment and blatant betrayal by people in positions of influence and power among those in his own party. They are people who've sought to stifle a voice of integrity and deep understanding of government, and even deeper moral convictions, lest their own lack of political wisdom, understanding, and integrity be exposed by his shining example.
We are embroiled in a presidential race in which all of the above is happening. I want to assure those who don't know him well that while no human being is perfect, it is no exaggeration to say that Alan Keyes is a man whose principles are never violated for the sake of political advantage. Those who have followed Keyes know he has paid a great price to retain his integrity, despite working in a realm in which it is extremely difficult for a truly honest man to keep his head above water.
For those who are critical of Dr. Keyes for waiting until September 14th to announce his candidacy, and for the overall campaign strategy he is employing please allow me to suggest that you don't jump ship over these things. As the monk in the television episode taught his female friend, things aren't always what they seem to be on the surface. It seems that everyone thinks they know all the answers. Yet, so few actually come to a place of seeking truth above all other things in asking themselves . . .
What is the question?
I must admit that I was beginning to grow a little impatient myself by the time Dr. Keyes announced. But after what I thought was an innocent comment I made one day, Dr. Keyes informed me that he doesn't recognize the idea that "he waited so long to declare his candidacy." I was reminded that until this election season, it wasn't unusual for presidential candidates to wait until after Labor Day the year before the election to declare their candidacy.
At that point, although I realized there was truth in what he said, I still wondered if this was truly "the" question . . . "Oh, me of little faith." After more prayer and further reflection, I began to realize something important. Whether Dr. Keyes wins the Republican nomination or not, there is a matter of greater significance that was an important factor as he made decisions concerning this election.
Political pundits weigh in on development of the 2008 primary seasonShortly after the first of the year 2007, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama swung into action, launching their presidential campaigns almost immediately. At the time, I wondered about the wisdom of doing so, and I was in good company. People like Tim Russert of "Meet the Press" and other well known political pundits were wondering the same thing for a couple of reasons:
(1) The longer you extend a primary season, the harder it is to sustain the momentum needed to carry a candidate through to victory.
(2) Knowing this to be true would inevitably tempt party moguls in various states to tinker with the date of their presidential preference primaries.
Logic tells us that one of the reasons for the latter would be concern that grassroots candidates will have time to get their message out, and end up overcoming the natural advantage afforded "top-tier" candidates. These media-promoted candidates often ride a gossamer wave of popularity right into the nomination, before common citizens realize there were truly valid options available who were worthy of more serious consideration than they received.
Was concern about other candidates gaining an advantage by entering the race so far ahead of time the only valid consideration? Or even the most important consideration? Was this truly "the" question Alan Keyes should have been asking himself as he considered how to respond to the way the campaign season was shaping up? Or could it be that to have allowed this to dictate his decisions would have required a shallow, shortsighted, and selfish perception of the situation that totally ignores the priority issue?
Tim Russert weighs in on the situation
Sometimes, important things just aren't obvious on the surface. If we slow down and think things through carefully, there is often much that comes to our attention that would be missed otherwise. When I speak of "the" question, I'm talking about truly understanding what the priority issue is, and giving considerations involving "the" question priority as decisions are made. In this case, the point is this: If we emphasize something besides just winning at all costs, and consider principles and traditions that are extremely important for good reason, there is indeed an issue of greater substance and import that comes to light. This is an issue that has for the most part been ignored during this primary season.
Just the other day, Tim Russert noted that both the state of Iowa and New Hampshire might actually move their primary/caucus dates forward to December of 2007. Then he exclaimed, "This is no way to run a presidential election!" Russert was right on target. This game of political one-upmanship is destroying the 2008 election process. Most rational people are beginning to come to the same conclusion by now. Selfish interest has ruled almost completely, both among the candidates and also within the structure and workings of many state governments. The people involved in these decisions have exhibited absolutely no regard for sound principles, protocols, or the good of this nation.What matters most: principles or personal agendas?
I believe one of the reasons Alan Keyes has gone about things as he has is because his conscience wouldn't allow him to become part of the problem. Should Keyes have done something that might serve his short-term interests better, but which he knew would add to a serious problem he saw developing? Or should he have sought to be more responsible than that seeking to establish something of greater long-term value, even if it must come at the risk of hindering the accomplishment of a short-term objective?
One of Alan Keyes' trademarks has been strong personal character. There was therefore more for him to consider than just trying to make certain no one got the jump on him in the race for the presidency. How far may one hope to go without doing damage to things of great value and import, while placing personal ambitions above sound principles? Now I know some of you are thinking, "This may be true, but there are times when a situation calls for exceptional action."
If you are one of those people, I can agree with you to at least some extent. But we can't afford to ignore important factors that are becoming clearly evident and approach things from what we know to be a destructive perspective. Who can deliberately do something more self-serving than beneficial, knowing the future of an entire nation is at stake? Who indeed: we have nearly an entire field of candidates made up of such people.
What am I talking about? I'm talking about a political process being hijacked by people with less regard for sound principles and national stability than for personal ambitions and political agendas. The result is that a government "of the people, by the people, for the people" is turning into a hegemony made up of political and societal elites, backed by corporate donors and private interest lobbies.
If anyone doubts that these things were on the mind of Alan Keyes as he considered his decision to run for the Oval Office, proof is readily available. Just read what he has written about this problem in a series published during the period leading up to his declaration of candidacy titled "The Crisis of the Republic." This series can be found on the front page at alankeyes.com.The situation as it now stands
A discussion board is available as a meeting place for people supporting Alan Keyes and "America's Revival," and as a tool to help them organize efforts on behalf of the cause. Recently, someone entered the discussion saying:
-
Everyone on this forum is WHINING about the Mich[igan] Repub[lican]s and NBC for stiffing our candidate. HELLO!!! Why didn't he file 3 days earlier?!?!?!? Did he not KNOW there was a 9/11 deadline in a state where there will be a primary in roughly 120 days??!?!?!?!?..... We NEEDED DR KEYES on that platform, and someone dropped the ball. Don't know who it was, but it is worth the question. And how in the WORLD do they expect to generate support ..... when they are blaming MI GOP and NBC for their patently obvious poor campaign management??? It's ridiculous, inexcusable, and unworthy of the principles to which Dr. Keyes adheres.
I spoke with an "election specialist" at the Michigan Secretary of State Office over a month before the new information on ballot access requirements was released. She told me the decision wasn't even going to be made and they weren't even going to post the new information until after what turned out to be the new deadline to file for ballot access.
One would naturally assume that the information would be released at least a little before related deadlines. Yet, just as I was about to contact the elections representative again, I was notified that the Michigan state GOP was excluding Dr. Keyes from ballot access. Not only had Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (along with the legislature) moved the primary date from February 26th to January 15, 2008, she changed the rules pertaining to qualifications for ballot access.
Michigan state officials vested sole power for determination of issues regarding ballot access in state political parties. Then upon releasing news of this decision on Sept. 4, 2007, the parties were given until Sept. 11, 2007, to submit the names of their "potential presidential candidates" to the Secretary of State. In other words, although Dr. Keyes announced his candidacy before the date I had been given to check back with the Secretary of State Office, the Michigan GOP, whose director is a staunch Mitt Romney supporter, excluded Dr. Keyes from the upcoming primary debate in their state. The excuse given was that he missed the deadline for ballot access.
This put Dr. Keyes in an almost impossible situation. His only hope of getting on the ballot would be for his supporters to gather nearly 12,000 petition signatures of registered Republican voters in the state of Michigan in a very short time and that isn't where it all ended.
The new requirements and deadlines weren't announced until September. Yet, despite the fact that the old rules prohibited the gathering of petition signatures before Oct. 1, 2007, the starting date to begin gathering petition signatures was moved retroactively back to August 15th, and the new deadline set for October 23rd. (The old deadline was Dec. 14th.) The new starting date of the period designated for gathering signatures was retroactively set before the new law was signed and the information released. This took away nearly half of the time allotted to gather petition signatures while appearing to do the reverse!
A political process corrupted from end to end
After having been invited, Alan Keyes was un-invited to the Oct. 25 AARP debate. It seems that John McCain didn't want him there. Dr. Keyes was also excluded from the Republican primary debate in Orlando, Florida. This was done, supposedly, on the basis of his failure to qualify by virtue of the results of polls in which his name wasn't even included. In a response, the Keyes campaign stated:-
The Florida party used a 1% or better showing in polls from three of six polling firms as their criterion for inclusion in the event, even though none of the selected polling firms included Keyes, the latest entry in the presidential race, in any of their statewide surveys to date. However, had Keyes been included in these polls, objective observers including staff of some of the polling firms in question agreed, based on past electoral performance in Florida, and on current polling that is taking place in other states, that he would have received a percentage meeting or exceeding the threshold.
In 2000, in the last contested GOP presidential primary, 32,354 or nearly five percent of Florida Republicans, and about one million voters nationwide, cast their vote for Keyes. He was included in the Values Voter Debate in Fort Lauderdale last month, after only three days in the race. In the post-debate straw poll, Keyes surpassed all the other candidates in the GOP field except Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. The Des Moines Register's Iowa Poll, the most-recognized media measure in the first-in-the-nation caucus state, was released during the time period in question, showing Keyes at 2% after only two weeks in the race, equaling or surpassing several long-time GOP candidates, all of whom received invitations to the Orlando debate. (emphasis added)
After dancing around the issue at first, their last stated position on the matter was that there were already too many people speaking to make time for Dr. Keyes. Then they turned around and allowed Senator Brownback time in the podium after he announced that he was withdrawing from the race. They also had a long list of speakers who weren't candidates, some of whom I've had never even heard of. Yet they refused to bump even one of them to make room for a valid candidate of Alan Keyes' stature and popularity.
And at the last minute, they made room for Rudy Giuliani to speak. These people are afraid of Dr. Keyes, because he is one of the most brilliant, articulate, and capable defenders of conservative values that has ever come along. Their real problem with Alan Keyes is simple. He will not bow to partisan politics or adopt a policy just to please people of power and influence he will stand for the truth at all costs. The problem is, Keyes isn't putting forth some watered-down version of conservatism like that which is being foisted upon the American people by other candidates today.
So what are we to make of it all?
This brings me to my main point. What is a presidential candidate in America to do today if he doesn't happen to be one of the media darlings, or one who will cow-tow to partisan policy lines? This is what is required to be anointed by the "powers that be" in the Republican Party. For years, concerned citizens have tried one approach after another in dealing with this problem. They have tried everything from third party candidacies to financing an independent candidacy, sometimes largely out of their own pockets.
Over the past few weeks, there has been so much attention in the news media regarding candidates who've been the strongest fundraisers. The media asserted that without their influence and the ability to raise nearly $100 million just to get through the primary season, a candidate has little chance of winning. This has created a situation in which the only ones who succeed are those willing to cater to political power brokers and bow to party politics. Alan Keyes has always been aware that this is what he is up against. But rather than compromise his convictions and ignore things that political education and experience have taught him, Keyes has stood tall and made a stand for what is true, regardless of the price to be paid.
In the state of Illinois, late in the campaign season, the Republican Party worked to convince Dr. Keyes to pull up stakes and move from Maryland to represent the GOP in the 2004 U.S. Senate race. Then after his arrival in Chicago, representatives of the Republican Party approached Dr. Keyes about his campaign strategy. They wanted him to ignore what he knows are vital core issues, and approach his campaign from a completely different perspective. When Keyes failed to march in step with the beat of their drum, the party abandoned him completely, making a scapegoat of him.
How the political process has been hijacked
The Republican Party has long been ignoring truly valid conservative candidates, lending its influence and support to people of limited honor and questionable character, instead. As a result, the American people haven't been given a fair chance to see or know who would actually be the best candidate.The American political process, which was established to facilitate this very purpose, has become so corrupt the American people don't really have a choice regarding who leads them anymore. At this point, the situation is one in which for all intents and purposes powerful people in positions of influence, not all of whom are even American citizens, sit back, thinking: "The public can vote for anyone they like . . . as long as we control the choices."
What is the solution to this problem? What can be done to put power back into the hands of ordinary citizens? Shouldn't this be the objective of any real conservative candidate who loves America and has concerns that run deeper than their own personal ambitions? Only a true spiritual revival of conscience and conduct, combined with a revival of truly American political principles, can accomplish what needs to be done. Grassroots conservatives must raise an army of people of sound values who will work together to overcome media blockage, partisan power, and the influence of powerful corporate interests.
Such a revival is in the offing at this time. "America's Revival" is the name given to the grassroots movement founded by Dr. Alan Keyes as part of his campaign strategy, for the purpose of accomplishing this objective. In my response to the person who railed against the Keyes organization at the discussion board, I went on to say:
-
However, regardless of how this election goes, something has been started here that must endure; and win, lose, or draw the work must go on after the election is over. This is not just for Dr. Keyes. This is intended to begin a work that will put power back into the hands of the grassroots, despite the work of the news media. Not to mention all the things that have become part of the American political process to prevent anyone other than the one party two choice Republicrat candidates from having an opportunity to win. This is a type of movement that has to be built and it must grow to the needed proportions to see that the grassroots begin to have a voice in the American political process once again.
Playing by rules made by people who care little about anything but winning an election isn't what is needed this crucial political season. Announcing the Keyes candidacy sooner to avoid being beaten to the punch wouldn't have been much of a solution. The thing Dr. Keyes is doing here, as is so often the case with his political policies, is deeper and more substantial than the things being said and done by others who possess little understanding.
This is only one of the reasons I believe that supporting Alan Keyes is the right thing to do. There are many other reasons I support him, ranging from his specific policy positions and proven track record of consistent conservatism, to his refusal to be compromised at any cost. President Bush started out talking the talk. Now we need someone with political understanding and expertise working on the problems who actually walks the talk. We need someone whose word can be trusted. More than any other candidate in this Republican presidential primary season and any other politician of our time since Ronald Reagan this would be Dr. Alan Keyes.I think it significant that Dr. Keyes served in key positions in the Reagan administration. During the time when Ronald Reagan was governor of California, the Russian KGB was studying Reagan, thinking he would soon ascend to the presidency. At the bottom of a report they turned in, it said this: "The Reagan word and deed are the same." No wonder President Reagan appreciated and trusted Alan Keyes so much they had that in common.
Thus, it should be no surprise that President Reagan said the following of Dr. Keyes:
-
Alan . . . reflects the values and bedrock principles of this great nation the principles of family and home and community and church. Our greatest treasure is our precious moral heritage, the basic values of faith and family that make ours, as Alan says, a great nation.
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)