I am not an Illinois voter, I reside in CA. So other than my curisoty, I don't really have much at stake in Il. I was curious about the race. While Dr. Keyes has many good views, his manner and method of communicating is very off-putting. Considering I am 100% against gay marriage, it is quite a trick for Dr. Keyes to make me disagree with him, and the way he frames the issues. Yet, somehow he does. With Dr. Keyes, he and I may agree on the actual issue, but he infuses the conclusion with how he personally arrived at it. So instead of building a consensus on an issue, he is more interested in making everyone share his exact view.
I think that is about I want to say about that.
While Dr. Keyes has many good views, his manner and method of communicating is very off-putting.
As much as I admire Dr. Keyes, I agree with you on this point, TheOtherOne. And I speak as a long-term observer, admirer, and “fan” of his, dating back to his service in the Reagan Administration. He speaks with a self-assurance that I imagine strikes many people as bordering on arrogance. And if one doesn’t immediately grasp “where he’s coming from,” his rhetoric can and often does come across as very off-putting.
Be that as it may, what it all seems to boil down to for practical purposes is this: IMO, Dr. Keyes totally lacks the instincts of a politician. And I suspect this goes to something more than his obviously deeply held Christian commitments. For there is another notable politician running around today who shares Dr. Keyes’ Christian commitments in as deep a way yet who does not seem to much trouble folks – at least not most folks outside of the progressive Left, that is. His name is George Bush, and he is a very successful politician. :^) And also (from my point of view), an eminently worthy and trustworthy man.
What I wish Dr. Keyes would learn is that “you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.” But frankly, I strongly doubt that he has much concern for PR and “political spin” as such….
And so I can relate when you write:
Considering I am 100% against gay marriage, it is quite a trick for Dr. Keyes to make me disagree with him, and the way he frames the issues. Yet, somehow he does. With Dr. Keyes, he and I may agree on the actual issue, but he infuses the conclusion with how he personally arrived at it. So instead of building a consensus on an issue, he is more interested in making everyone share his exact view.
I think this is a fair assessment, TheOtherOne (at least short of the second phrase of the concluding sentence, with which a person might disagree.) Which underscores the point already alleged, that 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 (e.g., I totally agree with his reasoning regarding the desirability of repeal of the 17th amendment in order to restore the original constitutional balance of powers), who is enormously well-educated and deeply aware of the history of America and of Western culture and its traditions, who is steeped in public service experience, and who profoundly loves his country.
Unfortunately, such qualities do not seem to be in much demand these days among the general electorate. But it seems Dr. Keyes will not “cut himself down” to what fits, to what does sell to voters. And in this, I think he is leaving the field wide open to Barak Obama – who gives every indication of being a first-class, instinctively talented politician who will “cut himself” to fit the perceptions and expectations of the time as circumstances may require, for the single-minded purpose of election to national office.
In short, if I understand the man at all, Keyes would rather not be elected, than to have to stoop to such a policy. Or so it seems to me. Instead, he will stand on principle, every time, rather than kow-tow to political expediency. Personally, I find that admirable – although highly dubious as a winning election strategy.
And thus the voters of Illinois – if they are at all thoughtful – would seem to be confronted with a very stark choice of candidates in their senate race this year.
On the one hand, they have an “abrasive” non-politician who will stand or fall on principle; on the other, they have a person who thrice has voted against born-alive infant legislation in the state of Illinois.
Regarding the latter, I have to ask: What kind of a man is it that refuses to protect the life of an already-born, living child? And further, what kind of people would we Americans become, if we did not find the refusal to protect the life of a fellow already-born human being from gratuitous extinction as beyond the pale of civilized society?
Please don’t get me wrong: I am not a “single issue voter.” It’s just that, to me, the refusal to protect the life of an already-born infant goes straight to the very core of what America means, and what it means to be an American. To me, such refusal represents an “insensitivity” worthy only of a hard-core fascist or communist. Moreover, I consider the deliberate refusal to protect the born-alive infant as a total violation of constitutional protections, one that undermines the entire purpose of a system of government formed for the sole purpose of upholding and defending life, liberty and equal justice under law.
Well, for whatever it’s worth, I’m grateful to you for letting me “vent,” TheOtherOne. And I especially thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Hope neither of us gets banned this time! :^)
Thanks again for writing.