Queer Eye for the Media Guy (audio link: Alan Keyes actual "selfish hedonist" comments in context)

I have always liked and admired Keyes, but I have never been willing to support him as a presidential candidate, or take him seriously as a bona fide candidate, because of his lack of experience in the political realm.

I have said repeatedly that, to be a serious candidate, he needed to run for office, and win, at another level. Congress, or governor. But politicians have to compromise in order to get anything accomplished, or to say it another way, politicians have to build a consensus. Until the consensus is there, in most cases their hands are tied, whatever their good intentions.

Prophets are necessary to the building of that consensus, so it is not obvious that in trading the one role for the other, Keyes is advancing the cause. His runs for president, while not serious, did provide him with a podium and an audience and a chance to communicate his message. And, since he was not a serious candidate, there was no need to shade his message to attract an audience.

If he actually wins his race, though, he will find that he has to traffic in compromise in order to get anything done. That does not mean compromising your values, necessarily, rather quite the opposite. When your task is to build a consensus, when you compromise, you need moral clarity above all, in order to know where you are in the process. A sailor is not "compromising" his values when he tacks or zig-zags his way to his destination, he is using the available winds and currents. The sailor who refuses to use contrary winds is a sailor who isn't going anywhere.

And so it is with politics. An effective politician learns how to work the political currents as they are, and bend them just enough to get them a little closer to where they ought to be.

Prophets don't have that luxury, they have to speak clearly and let the chips fall. And politicians don't have the luxury to just let the chips fall. But while they make the deals they have to make to get part of what they want, they can and do have the opportunity to use the pulpit their position provides, to affirm and promote their ultimate goals. But they, unlike a prophet, very much face the need to shape and tailor their message to their audience; it doesn't do any good to be right if no one is listening.

I notice one thing about GW Bush. He has compromised on any number of things in order to get what he wants. For those of us who hate compromise, it has been frustrating. But he has held firmly to his goals on the war, and he has in his rhetoric always affirmed the ultimate values even while he gives ground in order to survive politically, and in order to build the consensus he needs.

I am following Keyes' career with great interest. Philosophically, there is no one out there who has as keen a grasp of underlying principles, and no one expresses them more powerfully; when he is good, he is very good. At one level, it is impossible to be both prophet and politician. We need both. Until he has established himself he can never seriously be candidate for president. And yet, there is no more powerful prophet than president. So it is a quandary. To be Prophet he must give up being prophet. If he were Rush Limbaugh, I would say he should keep the mike and forget running for office. Rush has found his calling, he is most effective where he is. Keyes is different. He needs to step forward and learn to do battle in the political world, to prepare himself for something greater.

...amendments are very hard to acheive - so we continue to pursue a 60 Senator majority to back the White House in judicial appointments.

Wouldn't that be nice! (Hope President Bush has long coat-tails this year....) OR, assuming the Senate stays a GOP majority, post-November 2, RE: judicial nominations, the leadership could effect a "simple" rule change: The Senate has broad powers to effect rule-changes pertaining to the way it conducts its own business. (The Left would scream bloody murder, of course.... )

Really, never before in the history of this country (to the best of my knowledge) has the Senate used the fillibuster to defeat executive nominations to the courts. The power of nomination is expressly delegated to the president alone by the Constitution. I doubt the Framers ever suspected that "super-majority rules" would ever come into play respecting the "advise and consent" function of the Senate. Note the terminology: It does not say "advise; then if the president doesn't take your advice, don't consent." (Of course, the Senate was originally the representative body of the several states' legislatures; and then along came the 17th Amendment and it's "all been downhill from there" :^) -- at least in terms of state sovereignty and the Constitution's guarantee of a "republican system of government.") Simple majority has always been the Senate rule in the judicial confirmation process. If Daschle gets his walking papers this year, that could be a great help right there. :^)

Meanwhile, I guess we're just all gonna have to be patient and see what happens on November 2....

Thanks so much for writing, A-G! It's so good to hear from you!

Betty Boop wrote

-- Dr. Keyes profoundly lacks political skills. And more's the pity for that. For in my view, here we have a man who is (IMHO) a world-class thinker, who has thoroughly mastered the philosophy and intent of the U.S. Constitution --

The "political skill" Keyes most lacks, [IMHO], is the ability to convince his peers that he "has thoroughly mastered the philosophy and intent of the U.S. Constitution".. He is in favor of amending our Constitution to allow prohibitions on 'non-traditional' marriage & abortion, just for starters.
Constitutional philosophy is NOT in favor of infringing upon unenumerated rights with prohibitive decrees that ignore due process of law.

--- it is enormously difficult to amend the constitution. If a proposed amendment were to succeed, that would likely mean that it has enormous popular support from "We the People" -- that is, broad social consensus behind it.

Betty, initial "broad social consensus" does not mean that an Amendment is Constitutional, as we can see by the ultimate failure of booze prohibition.

And it seems to me that, in the case of the gay marriage question, if the broad society wants to defend its historical values, traditions, and way of life against "social innovations" that tend to undermine them, then constitutional amendment is the tool the Framers provided. Again, it would require a very broad consensus to pass such an amendment.

We really can't pass Amendments that are repugnant to the principles of our Constitution, Betty. - They don't work and encourage lawlessness, as per the 18th.

I know my friend tpaine is ever vigilent about preventing the "tyranny of the majority," lest the government despoil the unalienable rights of the individual. I just don't see how the willful destruction of pre-born human life could possibly be an unenumerated human right.

The individual womans right to be not pregnant does not end at conception. The developing life within her does not have separate rights for up to several months after conception.
An Amendment prohibiting early term abortion would deprive women of individual liberty, and be totally ignored, as was alcohol prohibition.

And gays are not now being deprived of their right to marry -- they just choose not to, if it means marrying a member of the opposite sex, which is what marriage does require. Indeed, that is the meaning of the word.

Let them call themselves 'married', who cares? Remove the existing tax & insurance benefits of traditional marriage, and the 'queer marriage' problem will go away. Promote family values in other ways.

Rather than exclusively focus on the tyranny of the majority, it seems to me that in our own time, we need to recognize that there is such a thing as "tyranny of the minority" -- e.g., activist judges, progressivist interest groups, etc. -- and about the only defense the people have against that, it seems to me, is a constitutional amendment. FWIW.

Betty, we have a political problem, not a Constitutional one. [Except for repealing income tax.]

A sailor is not "compromising" his values when he tacks or zig-zags his way to his destination, he is using the available winds and currents. The sailor who refuses to use contrary winds is a sailor who isn't going anywhere.

What a marvelous insight, marron! And so true!!! Speaking as someone with experience as foredeck mate, I can tell you, "beating" down to the first mark, attempting flexibly and sensitively to maintain the most efficient (i.e., timely) course vis-a-vis a contrary wind, relative to the "competition" -- all the other yachts in the race -- that "tacking duels" have been known to ensue. Just to gain the most favorable position around the next mark, usually a leeward course, from whence one can "run" under spinnaker, more or less with the wind at one's back....

Your contrast of the politican and the prophet is so insightful, penetrating, marron -- outstanding as usual.

I agree, the prophet is not primarily given to consensus-building. But then, it also seems to me that a politician -- in the long run, at least -- can't build any holding consensus if he ignores the concerns of the prophet.

And here we are. Or at least, the Illinois electorate is, faced with the choice of a prophet or Barack Omaba. Probably too few realize the starkness of the choice they face in their senatorial election this year. Those who are aware, I wonder how they will value it.

Thank you so much for your beautiful post.

Betty, initial "broad social consensus" does not mean that an Amendment is Constitutional, as we can see by the ultimate failure of booze prohibition.

tpaine, forgive me if I suggest that your understanding of the Constitution is more "doctrinal" than the Framers would ever have imagined or intended. The Framers left it up to "We the People" -- not to a document, let alone a legal system -- to determine the definition of what is "constitutional." Otherwise, they would never have included Article V -- which provides the "due process" by which the Constitution can be realigned to meet changing needs over time. (And Alexander Hamilton set the bar very, very high here.) The Framers left the future of their nation with a set of "ground rules" by which all future events that they could not possibly foresee or predict would be rendered to "We the People" for judgment.

I mean really, do you think the original motivation or the abiding excellence of the Constitution consists in the removal of the monarch, just so that the Sovereign People would become subject to a piece of parchment, with celebrity signatures appended thereto?

It seems to me that the Libertarian emphasis has ever been focussed on the rights of the discrete individual person.

But IMHO where Libertarian thought ever seems to come up far, far short is in the matter of how one can assemble all them individuals into an abidingly coherent, just, peaceful, and prosperous society, where opportunities are available to challenge the talent, ability, and hard work of anybody from anywhere, by which such talents and abilities are made fruitful -- at both the personal and the social level.

I have a question: What source validates your assertion that an unborn human child receives "equal protection of law" status only at some ambiguous stage occurring late in its pregnancy? And that prior to that, the law declares "open season" on the child?

I guess I'm asking you for your sense of when "equal protection" actually commences to protect what is clearly and unambiguously a human life. Hope you can shed some light for me on this matter.

Thanks so much for writing, tp.

Betty, you make a valid defense of life. There is no TRUE lover of liberty who believes in the taking of life for the sake of convenience. The traditional rules apply.

The taking of life must be a matter of some real issue of "self-preservation." Therefore, "the life of the mother (LOM)" is a viable reason for terminating a pregnancy....please note we are talking about a REAL LOM case. Such a case is extremely rare that necessitates a decision between the child and the mother. With advances in medicine, they're almost impossible to imagine.....tragic auto accidents, for example, might bring about such a decision.

I, too, think that libertarianism has some difficulty with the fact that the individual is living within a society.

Orthodox Presbyterian just fled the Florida Keys and might not have returned home yet, but I've pinged him. He has recognized some of the problems with Libertarianism and has developed an ideology he calls "Propertarian." I think it takes into account better the demands of social interaction.

There is no TRUE lover of liberty who believes in the taking of life for the sake of convenience.... The taking of life must be a matter of some real issue of "self-preservation."

I totally agree, xzins. On this basis, the exception for the life of the mother more than likely has a soundly valid objective basis -- in a way that the health of the mother does not and cannot have. For the "health of the mother" these days seems to indicate a purely subjective category, which puts the mother in the role of sole judge as to whether a human life shall come into the world or not. And the basis of determination is such that the risk of persistent migrane forever after the birth of the child, or uncontrollable weight gain, or even social disruptions that might affect mental health become the dispositive criteria of whether or not the child she (in all likelihood) has freely conceived should live or die.

Alan Keyes often speaks of "hedonism." Personally, I think what we're talking about here is something more than simple "hedonism," which supposedly involves some degree of personal pleasure, however transient.

Rather, I think what we're talking about here is narcissism, pure and simple: indicating a life that has no higher concept or purpose for living than what counts in terms of its own personal self-reference and self-aggrandisement. It seems to me that the truly genuine narcissists out there are the most tortured human beings you could point a stick at. They usually make a wide swath, and take out a lot of ordinary civilians in their wake....

But the more we focus on ourselves to the exclusion of others, the less pleasant -- and more futile -- life seems to become. Go figure!!!

I figure this is God's world. He made it; He sustains it; He maintains creation on a constant, faithful basis.

It seems to me that folks who want to cut against this grain have got their work cut out for them...to no good purpose at the end of the day, for themselves or anybody else.

Thank you so much for writing, xzins!

Betty, an initial "broad social consensus" does not mean that an Amendment is Constitutional, as we can see by the ultimate failure of booze prohibition.

Not so in regard to our inalienable rights, Betty. 'We the People' do not have the power to tell their peers what they can drink.

Otherwise, they would never have included Article V -- which provides the "due process" by which the Constitution can be realigned to meet changing needs over time.

The 'need' to prohibit intoxicating substances is imagined. -- As was proved by the 'great experiment', it was a complete failure.

(And Alexander Hamilton set the bar very, very high here.) The Framers left the future of their nation with a set of "ground rules" by which all future events that they could not possibly foresee or predict would be rendered to "We the People" for judgment.

Our rights to life liberty & property are not to be infringed, Betty. Those are the base "ground rules".

Sad that you think that's all it is Betty.. For shame.

The Constitution facilitates under a set of simple, consistent rules the means for a free people to engage in a system of liberty under equal justice of law -- i.e., in a free, dynamic, organic society, together -- "with liberty and justice for all." Man is a "social animal" just as much as he is an individual.
It seems to me that the Libertarian emphasis has ever been focussed on the rights of the discrete individual person.
But IMHO where Libertarian thought ever seems to come up far, far short is in the matter of how one can assemble all them individuals into an abidingly coherent, just, peaceful, and prosperous society, where opportunities are available to challenge the talent, ability, and hard work of anybody from anywhere, by which such talents and abilities are made fruitful -- at both the personal and the social level.

Do you really think you made a point about libertarians in that comment Betty? All I see is empty rhetoric.

I have a question:
What source validates your assertion that an unborn human child receives "equal protection of law" status only at some ambiguous stage occurring late in its pregnancy? And that prior to that, the law declares "open season" on the child?

Straw man allegations, betty. My last post said nothing like 'ambiguous stage/open seasons'.

I guess I'm asking you for your sense of when "equal protection" actually commences to protect what is clearly and unambiguously a human life. Hope you can shed some light for me on this matter.

Sure, -- you wrote earlier:

I just don't see how the willful destruction of pre-born human life could possibly be an unenumerated human right.

I answered:
The individual womans right to be not pregnant does not end at conception.
The developing life within her does not have separate rights for up to several months after conception.
An Amendment prohibiting early term abortion would deprive women of individual liberty, and be totally ignored, as was alcohol prohibition. ----

---- Now you ask again:

I guess I'm asking you for your sense of when "equal protection" actually commences to protect what is clearly and unambiguously a human life.

Not at conception. -- But clearly at viability. The USSC has solved the legal dilemma by the 'trimester opinion'.
I see no other option, as it will not be solved by prohibitional decrees.
An Amendment prohibiting early term, first trimester abortion would deprive women of individual liberty, and be totally ignored, as was alcohol prohibition.

Thank y'all so much for including me in this very engaging conversation!

marron, I also very much appreciate the sailor metaphor for a politician's need to compromise. Ronald Reagan always spoke in leaps, but accomplished much one step at a time.

Here in Illinois, Keyes is the necessary candidate. The senator who is being replaced is a strong conservative, but the state Republican party has been a mess. Governor Ryan had profound ethical problems, which Republican voters tend to remember from election to election. Worse, the party kept giving one Ryan after another for the ballot. Keyes is none of this. He is the political anti-venom, the most zealous conservative known to me.

Also, I believe it is very necessary to have an amendment which defines a marriage as one man and one woman. It is the majority view and without it, judicial activism and fair faith and credit threatens not only same sex marriage but polygamy. And after that, what rationale could prevent marrying children, farm animals and family pets?

I also believe a constitutional amendment is necessary to define when human life begins, at which point the living human is legally protected. Again, bans on partial birth and live birth abortions are the majority view. And without it, judicial activists may very well yield to "scientists" who suggest that children ought to subjected to euthanasia for month(s) after birth. Such legal action would open the door for other types of euthanasia.

Jeepers, even laboratory mice have to be anesthetized before euthanasia – but unborn children do not receive that mercy in abortion, particularly partial birth abortion.

No offense (and I'm sure none was meant), but I certainly haven't "developed an ideology" called Propertarianism.

Although I coined the term to describe my own views, apparently I'm not the first to do so; it seems, based on what I have read, that the origin of the term (or at least the notion) dates as far back as John Locke or so.

Furthermore, regardless of the Origin of the Terminology, the "ideology" such as it is owes little to my "development" either -- it's simply an attempt to describe the Exodus 22 "Fence Laws" using modern political idiom.

To wit: The Laws of Exodus were highly libertarian as pertained to a man's use of his own Personal Property; even most private "vices" were not subject to Civil Law.... HOWEVER, while a man might enjoy unrestricted use of his Personal Property, he was held fully responsible for Damages inflicted to other Properties or to the Public Commons (the Exodus 22 example of a Rampaging Ox could be applied, for example, to loud Rock Music -- I have every Civil right to play my Metallica at 120 decibels in my own living room, provided that I have erected such impenetrable sound-proofing that my next-door neighbor can sleep soundly as a contented baby on his own property).

"Propertarianism", then, is as I have said: nothing more than an attempt to interpret the Exodus 22 "Fence Laws" within the context of Modern Society. Private Property Rights ought be sacrosanct, as God intended; but also as God intended, Your Rights end at the line of your Fence -- beyond that Fence, the Community has every right to proscribe Intoxication, Gambling, Debauchery, Loud Music, Offensive Displays, or what have you upon the Public Commons.

I hope this provides some sense of the "ideology" of Propertarianism.

However, I'm unsure of what, if anything, it has to do with Libertarianism. While a rambunctious "Libertarian" might argue for the "right" to Drive Drunk on the Public Commons (provided you don't, oops, run over anyone), and a "Propertarian" like myself might argue instead that the Community has every right to establish Intoxication standards for the Public Commons (but not for Private Property), the fact is that both Libertarians and Propertarians will agree on the fundamental tenet of Libertarianism: The Non-Aggression Axiom.

"No Human Being has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another Human Being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation."

Four out of the last Five Libertarian Nominees for President (Paul '88, Browne '96, Browne '00, and Badnarik '04) have recognized that Abortion is a DIRECT VIOLATION of the Non-Aggression Axiom (although each has maintained -- correctly -- that Abortion is Murder, and Murder Law is Constitutionally delegated to the States).

If "Tpaine" thinks it's "A-OK, Fine and Dandy" for a man to commit Baby-Murder (even on his own property), then he's hardly representative of Libertarianism... seeing as he's completely out of step with 80% of the Libertarian Presidential Nominees of the last five General Elections.

Best, OP

I also believe a constitutional amendment is necessary to define when human life begins, at which point the living human is legally protected.

Constitutional Amendments must be approved by at least 3/4 of the States.... IOW, at least 38 out of the 50 States.

Politically, there is simply zero chance that ANY the 20 States of "2000 Election Gore Country" will ever approve a Constitutional Human Life Amendment in the foreseeable future -- let alone at least EIGHT of these Liberal States, are you freakin' kidding me? -- even assuming you could get it passed by 2/3 of the Congress (Pro-Lifers may be approaching a simple majority, but we aren't anywhere near 2/3 yet, are we? Didn't think so).

By contrast, the methodology advocated by Four of the last Five Libertarian Candidates for President (all of whom were Pro-Life) simply requires that a Constitutionalist-Conservative President appoint Supreme Court Judges who recognize an Amendment we already have -- the dis-regarded Tenth Amendment, which rightfully delegates Murder Law to the several States.

If the Supreme Court simply re-affirms the Tenth Amendment, then the 30 States of "2000 Election Bush Country" could prohibit or radically-restrict Abortion tomorrow across 60% of the Fruited Plain.

The Libertarian methodology is the more workable (and will save more unborn babies, sooner). Don't let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good. Don't be hung up on Pipe Dreams that just ain't politically possible. Work towards Tomorrow, but Live in the Now.

Best, OP

Thank you for your reply!

If the Supreme Court simply re-affirms the Tenth Amendment, then the 30 States of "2000 Election Bush Country" could prohibit or radically-restrict Abortion tomorrow across 60% of the Fruited Plain.

Strange, I thought this particular Supreme Court was the strongest recent court for states rights.

IMHO, as long as the Roe v Wade decision stands, the presumptive (though not Constitutional) individual right of privacy will trump any tests of the tenth amendment.

On a Constitutional Amendment to define when human life begins, I wouldn't expect Congress to go for something like "conception" because that is a political poison pill. However, most of the voters do abhor partial birth abortion and would abhor live birth abortion if they knew of it.

I know it's a long shot, but with God, anything is possible, so I pray for a lot of miracles.

"No Human Being has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another Human Being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation."

Four out of the last Five Libertarian Nominees for President (Paul '88, Browne '96, Browne '00, and Badnarik '04) have recognized that Abortion [of a viable human being] is a DIRECT VIOLATION of the Non-Aggression Axiom (although each has maintained -- correctly -- that Abortion is Murder, and Murder Law is Constitutionally delegated to the States).

I wonder OP, -- do they also claim that murder/abortion can be decreed to be criminal, -- no trial necessary?

If "Tpaine" thinks it's "A-OK, Fine and Dandy" for a man to commit Baby-Murder (even on his own property), then he's hardly representative of Libertarianism...

Weird claim OP.. One I've never made.
I don't agree with you that a just fertilized egg is a baby. After a month or two, with a normally developing pregnancy, I can start to agree that the mother to be should recognise that her baby to be has a right to life on par with her own. After the third month or so, the States interest in protecting the developing babies developing rights come increasingly into play.. And at some point thereafter, abortion can become murder.. And can be tried as murder, in a court before a jury. That's our Constitutional way.

seeing as he's completely out of step with 80% of the Libertarian Presidential Nominees of the last five General Elections.

OP, -- I could care less that I'm "out of step" on Constitutional matters. -- In fact, coming from your 'orthodoxy', many here at FR would consider being called out of step as a compliment.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.