Alan Keyes - A Lesson in Hypocrisy

Alan Keyes wants three freedoms for the American people: the freedom to not pay income tax, the freedom to have guns, and the freedom to live according to his moral standards. He wants the country to be guided by “God’s will”, not our wills (and presumably, therefore, not our votes). And not by your God or my God, but by his God. His speech didn’t leave much room for a democratic approach to determining what God is or wants. As I sat and watched him on the stage (and yes my hands were clenched in fists of rage), I couldn’t help but be amazed at the contradictions in what he said.

He began with a moving, if deluded, argument that income tax is slavery – worse he said than the physical slavery that blacks endured in the not too-distant past. Somehow I think that if we could ask some slaves about that, they’d disagree, but we’ll never be sure. Of the “other black politicians” he said, “These people are so enamored of slavery that they can’t wait to get back into it.” I’m not exactly sure what he meant by that. I did see a black man on the news the other night marching in support of the Confederate flag here in South Carolina, but I will be so bold as to say that the overwhelming majority of black politicians in this country are not guilty of that kind of reverence for that period of our history.

Then, regarding guns, he regurgitated some NRA logic, saying, “Guns are no more lethal or dangerous than this microphone or this podium.” Personally, I think that if Klebold and Harris had been armed with a podium, approximately twelve Columbine students would still be alive. But Keyes feels that guns are wonderful things as long as they do not fall into the wrong hands. I feel that way about government, which is why I will always fight to keep men like Keyes away from it.

Keyes said, “Bill Bradley talks about government power as if it’s a warm, fuzzy thing.” In the hands of a compassionate government it can be, but Keyes wouldn’t know about that. In his appeals for freedom from taxation and gun control, he said that the premise behind these things is that “we are not good enough to be free.” He talked about freedom this, freedom that, freedom until it sounded like a mantra. And if government went the way he would like, one of the first things he would do would be to take away the reproductive freedom of women. Next, he would take women and gays out of the military, meaning that the power to fight for our “freedoms” would now be an option for only about 39% of the American population. He argued that we should all be free, and that the power should be taken from the government and given back to the people. Then, when questioned about women in combat, he launched into a tirade about how humans, being naturally sexual animals, could not be trusted to hold their impulses in check, and therefore the government should do it for them by only allowing heterosexual males in the military. Which is it, Dr. Keyes? Are we responsible for our own actions and free to arrive at our own moral and ethical code, or should we have it all dictated by the Secretary of Defense and you, who will channel to us what God tells you? Is it that when it comes to guns and money, we deserve to be free, but when it comes to sex we do not?

The reason we have a separation of church and state is because otherwise, there would be a constant battle between opposing theologies to dominate our government. When religion and politics are kept separate, everyone may worship, or not worship, as they choose, and public policy is decided by factors more grounded in fact than in mythology. If more religious people could stop proselytizing long enough to ponder this, they would protect the separation of government and spirituality, recognizing that their freedom to live by their moral standards is jeopardized when I am not free to live by mine.

Laura Atkinson - September 2000

contact: laura.atkinson@duke.edu