Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Conservatives should make 2010 the ‘Passover’ election

I hear that Rush Limbaugh is telling people that they have no choice but to drink the Republican Kool-Aid in the 2010 elections. Given the track record of the forces still in control of the Republican Party, this is tantamount to saying that we let the American republic go gently into the dark night of National Socialism. It also implies surrendering the sovereignty of the American people on the altar of the economics-without-borders money powers whose machinations terrorized the nation into the arms of the Obama faction in the fall of 2008 (with a telling, indispensable assist from G. W. Bush.)

Now Obama's socialist putsch is rousing the conservative instincts of the American people. The Bush-Michael Steele Republicans see it as their job to exploit this reaction for political purposes, but without letting power fall into the hands of any true conservatives. It's a delicate maneuver, in which media Judas goats have an indispensable role. (Wikipedia has an excellent definition of Judas goat that's worth reading at this point. In essence, "The Judas goat is trained to associate with sheep or cattle, leading them to a specific destination. In stockyards the Judas goat will lead sheep to slaughter, while its own life is spared.")

Predictably, Rush Limbaugh (like the media personalities at the supposedly conservative Fox news network) is going about the work of herding angry grassroots Americans into the Republican sheep-pens, where they will be shorn of their character and liberty more slowly, but just as surely, as at the hands of the Obama faction. To accept his analysis, however, requires that we forget that G. W. Bush's surrender to socialism in 2008 was the culmination of years of missed opportunities and betrayals by Republicans to whom well intentioned conservative voters delivered control of the White House or the Congress (or both) from 1994 to 2006.

I know that some of these well intentioned conservative voters want desperately to believe that it was the bad old media or the wily bad Democrats who not only kept the Republican leaders from making good use of those years, but forced them to preside over the biggest spending spree in the nation's history up to that time. The Bush Republicans threw fiscal conservatism to the winds and paid no more than incompetent lip-serve to the agenda of restoring the nation's moral principles. Meanwhile, in the critical areas of education and national sovereignty they betrayed bedrock conservative principles by promoting the national government's liberty destroying control of our schools and colluding in the sovereignty destroying neglect of its Constitutional responsibility to secure our national borders.

Is the charitable view of the Republican leadership's sins justified? It might be, if we could believe that the violation and neglect of conservative ideas and principles was unintentional. Knowledgeable People have a hard time doing this, however, since they know that the Bush wing of the GOP has a long and consistent history of opposition to conservatism. In light of that history the failure to respect conservative ideas and principles during the years of Bush ascendancy looks suspiciously like reversion to type.

I was reminded of this today as I read this piece by Byron York on the washingtonexaminer.com website. York reports about "a revealing moment in a new book, scheduled for release next week, by former White House speechwriter Matt Latimer."


Bush was preparing to give a speech to the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference or CPAC. The conference is the event of the year for conservative activists; Republican politicians are required to appear and offer their praise of the conservative movement.

Latimer got the assignment to write Bush's speech. Draft in hand, he and a few other writers met with the president in the Oval Office. Bush was decidedly unenthusiastic.

"What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?" the president asked Latimer.

Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement -- the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC.

Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make.

"Let me tell you something," the president said. "I whupped Gary Bauer's ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement."

Bush seemed to equate the conservative movement -- the astonishing growth of conservative political strength that took place in the decades after Barry Goldwater's disastrous defeat in 1964 -- with the fortunes of Bauer, the evangelical Christian activist and former head of the Family Research Council whose 2000 presidential campaign went nowhere.

Now it was Latimer who looked perplexed. Bush tried to explain.

"Look, I know this probably sounds arrogant to say," the president said, "but I redefined the Republican Party."


This suggests that G. W. Bush prided himself on the fact that the Bush ascendancy in the Republican Party eliminated the conservative movement as a viable force in American politics. Now, with so many Americans boisterously asserting their belief in conservative ideas and principles, the apologists for the Republican Party would surely prefer that this intended aspect of the Bush legacy be locked out of sight for safekeeping. "We're your only hope against Obama," they proclaim. "Give us the power." In true Machiavellian fashion they won't say to conservative Americans "Give us the power; we want to continue destroying you." They just say "give us the power."

Through fear of Obama some conservatives will follow the Judas goat media leaders into the political slaughter pens one more time. Like the panic of a drowning victim, their fear actually makes them fight against those who try to offer them real aid. It blinds them to the fact that the Republicans now promising deliverance set conservatives up for failure in the first place. They don't really oppose Obama's goal. They just think he's moving toward it too hastily.

Keeping all this in mind, I must disagree with Rush Limbaugh. I see a desperate need for a third alternative for America. Whether you call it a party or not is immaterial. My advice is to put no faith in the Republican Party label, the Republican Party leaders, or the Republican Party candidates. That doesn't mean voting against all Republicans. It just means voting for no one just because of the Republican label. Right now, if the label says anything to conservatives, it reeks of duplicity and betrayal. The election of 2010 should be like the Passover recounted in the Bible. Only the politicians bearing the mark of true conservatism should be passed over by the conservative angel of political judgment.

But what will signify, like the lamb's blood that marked the dwellings of the Israelites, the presence of a commitment to conservative ideas, principles and policies? For my part, I look for a proven dedication to the principles on which the United States of America was founded, starting with the self-evident truth that we are all endowed with unalienable rights by the will of the Creator God. Every element of real conservatism can be deduced and articulated as a logical consequence of that truth. So by looking for the people determined to conserve American liberty I will find the only conservatives worthy of the name. What about you?

22 comments:

Mr. Louis Pizzuti, OP said...

Dr. Keyes,
We need an alternative based on
1) the Constitution as a political framework and
2) Distributism as an economic framework.
In only that fashion can we be Free (as the constitution would provide) and moral (capitalism as a framework can never be moral, since its root motivation is avarice).

Read "Small is Beautiful" or any of the economics of Belloc or Chesterton

THE CONSERVATIVE said...

Mr. Keyes might I suggest you throw your hat into the Constitution Party?
It is a truly conservative party adhering to our nations Constitutional roots! I was totally turned off by Rush Limbaugh's assessment yesterday. Conservatives have to come together in one accord and choose a platform which gets it!
The Constitution party is the New Republican Party for American Conservatives.
The republican party does not mirror the party of yesterday but resembles the democratic party in subtle ways.

THE CONSERVATIVE said...

I would suggest all God fearing men and women whom love our freedoms and leaders such as Mr. Keyes support this party. Mr.Keyes I would really love to hear your feelings about this party in a blog or e-mail thank you.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/

Alan Keyes said...

My experience with the Constitution Party leadership sadly forced me to conclude that the 'Constitution Party' label is no more reliable than the 'Republican'. This disappointed me, for a long time I thought the CP would provide a good basis for the effort to restore the American Constitutional Republic.
Throw all the Party labels away, and look at the individuals- their principles, their statements, their actions- and whether there is a record of consistency in the relationship among them.
I believe a good model for principled political action can be explored at http://www.AIPnews.com, the home of America's Independent Party.
AIP is supporting and will support principled, conservative CP candidates, as it is supporting and will support principled candidates regardless of the label they wear. This the the approach I recommend. We need an effort committed to American principles that belongs to and will remain in the hands of, grassroots Americans, not any individual or clique of party leaders or contributors.

THE CONSERVATIVE said...

Mr. Keyes thank you so much for your quick response! I appreciate your honesty and will look into the aip news that is very helpful!
I was raised in a republican house hold
I voted republican just for the label for twenty years (I was a judas goat) I am ashamed to say such.
I realized my error of thought process upon the realization Bush 2 was not whom I assumed he was and we know exactly what they say about people who assume.
I voted third party for the very first time in 2008 it was a decision of conscience voting for the lesser of two evils was not my objective.
I am proud to say I am a conservative and now with your input I am proud to be a conservative independent and will have to learn to shed myself of labels and look for substance.
My Father is still a supporter of the party and I told him just last week dad here is a link to a man I truly admire (You Mr. Keyes)I said dad this should have been Americas first Black President he is real.
Mr. Keyes where ever you decide to go and what ever you decide to do God is with you be strong and dont quit there are many like myself that support you.
You are a force to be reckoned with God bless.
Signed,
Todd the "conservative"
or as Jimmy Carter classifies me a racist because I speak out against this administrationadministration.

Mary Ann said...

I agree with Dr. Keyes, it is time to CHANGE the way politics is done in this country. Principles matter 200% more than party label. I'm looking for good, God-fearing conservatives to vote for in 2010. So is America's Independent Party. I see their vetting process as a way to insure that the people I support are truly conservative. Many are republicans, but not all. Some of those conservative republicans face a primary run-off against liberal republicans. We need to support CONSERVATIVES, whatever their party affiliation may be. As Dr. Keyes mentioned, the place to get conservative candidate information is http://www.AIPNews.com/.

THE CONSERVATIVE said...

AIPNews I signed up!

Larry Walker Jr said...

I'm with you. Maybe you or someone else could help us out by making a State-by-State List of those candidates with genuine conservative values. That's what's needed these days.

THE CONSERVATIVE said...

I'm with you Larry!

IONU said...

Dr. Keyes,

I'm not calling anyone a Judas goat, but your post brings to mind Stephen Stone's RenewAmerica.com, where a contributor named Arlen Williams is persecuting (a la Judas) Dr. Orly Taitz and her efforts to dethrone the Usurper aka Barry Soetoro.


http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/williams/090915

If you don't mind me asking, do you maintain a relationship with RenewAmerica, and are you an "Orly supporter?"

Alan Keyes said...

Larry Walker Jr.:
AIPnews.com will be keeping a list of 1)Candidates who pass the AIP test as genuine conservatives who respect the Founding Principles, uphold the Constitution and defend the sovereignty of the American people. 2)There will also be a list of candidates who fail the test. I think both lists are already up and running.

IONU:
My formal connection with Renewamerica ended quite some time ago. Orly Taitz represents me, along with other plaintiffs, in the case Federal Judge Carter has set for trial in January. I think those who seek to denigrate the insistence on Constitutional integrity in this matter have no genuine concern for the preservation of Constitutional government in this nation. In all fairness, though, I believe that Renewamerica has always offered access to varied views, and disagreements, just as I do on this blog.

gilbertabrett said...

As I commented in Dr. Keyes' last post, I want to find a way to reach all the people that do not have cable and/or internet and are disgusted with what they hear on the three standby networks or are relegated to their local "news"papers.

It would be nice to have a large bus, 18 wheeler or mobile home to travel the country and have town halls OR open the vehicle up to a stage and talk DIRECTLY to people. Spread the word the old fashioned way - BY MOUTH. Not waste a lot of money by advertising. Get in people's faces, not in front of their faces via satellite. Talk to people, not read someone else's words to them.

We need to start now AND FIND A CANDIDATE Dr. Keyes. (HINT, HINT) If we can start now, we can work with what is HOPEFULLY going to happen in 2010. Give people the chance to hear some truth DIRECTLY FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH. If a presidential candidate for 2012 started traveling around the country NOW, maybe they would have a better chance of spreading the word?

chiu_chunling said...

The Republican party isn't the only hope for conservative American voters, quite the opposite. The Republican party has never and will never win without the conservative vote. But if this principle is not understood and expressed vigorously, then there is no possibility for real change.

The electoral strategy for dealing with the Republican party's refusal to acknowledge conservatives is simple, but costly. You must continue to run third party or independent conservatives whenever the Republican candidate is not a genuine conservator of the republic. You must divide the vote and hand otherwise secure seats to the Democrats. And you must make it absolutely clear that you understand the election dynamic and intend to continue the tactic indefinitely.

Whether this results in the reformation or replacement of the Republican party is not something the conservative voters can decide, nor should you even entertain hopes for either outcome. A desire to avoid one of them is exactly the wedge that Party leaders will try to use to weaken your determination to consistently follow a strategy of voting for a real conservative in every election.

Jack said...

Ambassador Keyes, I have admired you and your work for years. I met you and I took a photo of you with Judge Moore at a conference on reform of the legal system. My close friend Matt Dentino has been volunteering for you and hoping to be able to work for your party more if finances can make it possible.

However, I personally remain concerned that as much as both major parties need to be turned upside down, a third party may be counter-productive.

I believe the only viable path for a third party is start with local and State elections. I understand that a Presidential candidate as a figurehead can create publicity, awareness, and motivation for a party. But a new party has to gain strength from the bottom up.

Jack said...

Put another way, I think the country is growing in its awareness that neither major party represents the people and both are hopelessly "lost." (We use the word corrupt too loosely sometimes. Technically if you leave food out for a week it will "suffer corruption" -- that is, rot. But some people then pounce on it as necessarily meaning an actual crime was committed, and using the term can backfire.)

Hoping that either party can restore our country to the right course seems increasingly NON viable and unbelievable. In 2006 and 2008, many conservatives boycotted the Republican Party on election day -- and MORE IMPORTANTLY in all the thousands of volunteer activities that lead up to election day. The result was severe losses.

Last November, people took a chance hoping that the Democrat party might be different. Now, people are so angry, and are spouting anger at BOTH parties, BECAUSE they hoped the Dems would be better, and they are seeing that NEITHER party is legitimate in representing the people.

HOWEVER.... Any third party effort has got to address the fact that turning to a third party is ALSO problematic in terms of viability.

Part of the anger right now is an increasing awareness that hoping for either the Democrats or the Republicans to truly care about and represent the people is looking impossible and NOT viable.

But the alternative of a third party also does not seem viable, EITHER.

Never in modern American history have people been more fed up with the major parties. This may be like 1850 approaching the 1860 election.

But we are still very far from convincing people that a third party viable, intead.

Jack said...

Re: Larry Walker's post, on State by State list of good candidates.

To have any impact, we need to accept candidates who are not necessarily in our party, especially a third party.

There are too many small, third parties to have an impact alone. So while we might NOT automatically accept a candidate from any party, we might need to stand behind INDIVIDUAL candidates even if they are not AIP or any other party.

When keeping a State-by-State list of candidates, you might have to grade them. Some might meet all of AIP's standards. Others might be a partial step forward, if not perfect.

Perhaps by communicating a more precise analysis, AIP might avoid the problem of either recommending no one, because no one is good enough, or else joining hands with someone who is tainted.

A rating system could clearly distinguish between "meeting AIP beliefs" versus "does not meet all AIP standards, but may advance MOST AIP beliefs" (if there is no better canddiate).


One of the things that makes the major parties big is that they are vast coalitions of separate philosophies and groups that might be separate third parties, but instead are merged together.

In a country that is ruled (indirectly) by the people, by definition ANY political party is forced into a dichotomy between what they truly believe and what they can accomplish. Never will any political party be able to implement everything they believe in, because the electorate will not always be "sold" (maybe not sold yet) on everything they advocate.

So a certain amount of pragmatism -- attacked as compromise -- is a fundamental part of a democratic system.

Of course "If you aim at nothing, you will certainly hit it." Aiming for the moon, while RESPECTING the disagreements of fellow Americans, is better than AIMING for mediocrity.

Alan Keyes said...

Jack;
You have many good ideas, not a few of which have been incorporated into the work of AIP. I think it would benefit AIP's work, and perhaps be of benefit to you, for you to join us sometimes on the Tuesday and Thursday America's Summit calls where people in AIP or interested in its work share ideas and discuss and debate their merits. AIP is being built by and for people at the grassroots, as a vehicle to insure that grassroots conservatives can make sure real conservative choices are available to voters at every level. The aim is not just to find election winners, but to also make sure their victories preserve and perpetuate the Godly principles of liberty and the Constitutional provisions that implement them, while safeguarding in all aspects the sovereignty of the American people. As the Roman Republic flaunted the authority of the Senate and the people of Rome, AIP looks to the authority of God and the Constitutional sovereignty of the American people. Sadly this triumvirate (God, the Constitution, the American people) is not even honored in the breach by the arrogant, elitists now in control of the so-called two party system.
Join us on Tuesday and Thursday at 9 PM (ET) by calling 218-339-2222 - Access code 340794#.

Texas Potters - Kim Overall said...

Just in the paper today, a judge threw out the case against BO's eligibility and threatened sanctions as frivolous if presented again. Who ever would have imagined ensuring leaders of our nation were eligible and wanted proof would be frivolous? God help us. We've strayed so far from what made us great (as did the Jews centuries agao) we've lost it and may never reclaim it. BUT, I believe everything always works out FOR God and not men. So the sun may be shining on them today, but not forever. Sure wish they'd ramp up the eligibility proof without judges getting 'bought and sold' or 'threatened'. Evidence. Where's the evidence? If two college kids can catch ACORN's ineligibility, maybe children of Jesus can help us adults with the Emperor Who Had No Clothes (or natural born citizenship)?

Rodney said...

You would be the best candidate, there are so many on your side you are not aware of. My intention is to make others aware we have a possible candidate that would lead this nation back to the principles on which it was founded. The founding fathers said the without morals or religion, this kind of experiment in democracy would fail, as I truly believe it is.

IONU said...

I have a dream....

Can we afford to wait until '10 to take back our country? What will be left of it? The internet rumor mill says that the death blow to the Oborter regime is coming soon, and it will involve Barnett et al v. Obama et al. in Judge Carter's courtroom, in which you, my dear Dr. Keyes, are a plaintiff.

To continue this line of wishful but entirely possible thinking, if a usurper President is found to be ineligible and removed from office, his VP and all his appointees will also be out of a job and every bill and E.O. he has signed will be void.

Next in line of succession: Nazi Pelosi? No way on God's green Earth. That leaves one historic alternative: a "special" election must be held.

Now here's REAL hope and change: one of the leading contenders in this election will be none other than Amb. Dr. Alan Keyes!!

Alan Keyes said...

IONU:
The Constitution provides for an orderly succession in the event Obama is found constitutionally unqualified. From a Constitutional viewpoint, Obama did not select VP Biden. An electoral college majority voted for him, using a list and with a vote entirely distinct from their vote for President. (The fact that the Democrats in convention accepted Obama's recommendation for VP has no Constitutional relevance.)
I am seeking the facts about Obama's eligibility because I believe the Constitution has to be respected. It would make no sense to depart from that necessary and proper conviction when dealing with the issue of the succession to the Presidency.

IONU said...

Dr. Keyes,

I trust you as a Constitutional scholar more than I trust any judge.

Well, then, I guess ol' Joe would serve as a transitional President until his term expires in '12.

By then AIP will be ready to deliver the real hope and change that we are still awaiting.

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.