(The following essay by Dr. Alan Keyes was published on www.Worldnetdaily.com - Saturday, January 29, 2000.)

* * * *

During normal times in American history, the country has been able to flourish under political leaders who were merely adequate. At such times even the highest officials of the United States government can come surprisingly close to fulfilling the vocation of their office simply by taking care to do no harm. The reason, of course, is that the American people are governed chiefly by themselves, and not by the officials of their governments.

Our common national principles, and the common character of a people formed under those principles, unites us in a community in which power and authority are diverse and divided. The myriad acts of self-restraint, generosity, lawfulness, and cooperative enterprise that constitute the life of America normally require no intervention by the federal government. Indeed they presume a restrained government for their existence. Truth to tell, the virtue of the American people has often enabled us to settle for leaders who had very little to offer beyond their unwillingness or inability to cause serious trouble.

But not all times are normal, and we cannot always settle for normal capacities of leadership. There have been times in our nation's history when we have faced danger and crisis. During such times, it can suddenly become urgent for the whole people to turn from their mostly private activities and interests to unite in a common action, or at least in a common understanding of what action is needed. At such times, a new and absolutely essential function of leadership emerges. In times of crisis, what the nation needs from its leaders above all is a clear articulation -- on behalf of the whole people -- of the nature of that crisis and the things that need to be done to respond to it.

Thankfully, Providence has provided leaders in previous times of challenge who have risen to the occasion and have helped to articulate, on a national level, a common understanding of the national danger, and the path to safety. We had such leaders at the time of the country's founding, the Civil War, and -- although in lesser degree -- during the times of travail we have faced in the 20th century.

I think we have come to a moral crisis today that requires precisely such statesmanlike articulation. We are approaching the crossroads of national decision regarding the whole range of issues that constitute the very fabric of our national life.

As our families decay, as our concept of sexual responsibility corrupts, as we become increasingly numbed to the massive, horrific destruction of unborn children in the womb, and as we become increasingly habituated to the loss of control of ourselves, our money and our schools, we approach a moment in which we will either act as a people to return to moral health, or we will acquiesce in the unraveling of the fabric of liberty. We are reaching a crisis of self-government which, if not effectively addressed, will mean the end of our very capacity as a people to enjoy the times of normal self-government.

We cannot afford leaders who will try to deal with this range of problems in a piecemeal fashion, with their lists of issues -- because precisely by inviting our people to focus on the details, such leaders distract them from seeing the crisis in a way that will make a true national resolve of reformation possible. As alarming as the trees may be, we must at all costs keep in sight the forest of our danger, which is that we are sacrificing our principles and destroying our character as a free people. The challenge we face now is our challenge as a people to renew our allegiance to our principles, and to get away from those policies that reject the fundamental moral principle of the country -- that our rights come from God, and must be exercised with respect for the authority of God. It is a matter of simple necessity for this country to be true to its principles, or we will lose everything we have.

We have reached a moment in which a comprehensive articulation is needed, so that the American people can understand the real nature of the crisis, respond to it first in terms of our allegiance to our basic principles, and then respond to it as well in each area of policy, in order to get back to a road that is consistent with self-government.

This articulation must come in the context of a presidential campaign, and not simply from a "moral leader." Because, when the preachers preach and saints exhort, the politicians piously agree with them, yet duck the issue by saying that preachers and saints don't have to convince voters. Therefore, the cynical politicians say, the moral renewal they acknowledge we need cannot take place in the realm of government policy. At such a time, there is no substitute for simply standing in the arena and demonstrating that this is a pathetic excuse from politicians who simply don't have the capacity to articulate what is needed for the American people.

America urgently needs a political leader who can demonstrate that the feeble excuses of phony conservatives should not be accepted. America needs a leader with the ability to understand and to move the heart of the American people forward in a direction that restores our sense of principle and our basis for self-government.

There is no time to lose -- because the Republican Party, whose principles and grassroots constituency make it the natural base for such leadership, is instead in danger of destroying itself from a fatal lack of courage and conviction.

If voters decide the next election on the strength of the economy, Democrats will win because we have a booming economy. If they decide on whether the world is at war or at peace, Democrats will win, because the world is at peace. The only chance Republicans have of victory is if the American people realize that they must make their decision in the next election be their effective response to the moral crisis we face. Republicans will win -- only if voters use their vote to turn away from the party that has been contributing to the moral destruction of America by leading us away from our principles, and toward the party that is inviting America to come home to the truth.

We are hanging on by our fingernails to a congressional majority, having lost in the last election what was, in effect, a controlling majority. The press is just waiting for the Republicans to lose control entirely, and in the current climate, with the issues and qualifications for being a "frontrunner" now pretty much defined as the Democrats wish to define them, we are well on the way to losing the presidential election and letting the Congress return to strong Democratic control.

We can avoid this fate by doing what Ronald Reagan did so effectively. In his resolute and courageous way, Reagan redefined the basis on which Americans would approach their electoral choice. Such redefinition of the very meaning of the electoral campaign must be the goal of the statesman today, and Republican primary voters should look for the candidate most able to accomplish it.

Therefore, Republican primary voters need to consider, conscientiously and seriously, which of the candidates before them for the Republican nomination has demonstrated the ability effectively to redefine the issues. Which candidate is truly capable of bringing out the connection of each issue to the moral crisis that is our key to survival as a free people -- and the Republican Party's key to victory? Which candidate can frame the issues in a way that moves hearts and minds, and evokes the best response from the American people?

I think that the answer to this question has become clear in recent weeks. It is now up to the voters and leadership in the party to decide whether they will grasp this opportunity for victory or distractedly swat it away. It is a time of decision for Republicans -- the decision whether we seriously intend to lead the country, or will settle for the inarticulate mediocrity which is a sure path to defeat.

We need to make a reasonable leap of faith. I've been thinking about, and taking, leaps of faith a lot lately. But what else has the grand experiment of self-government been, but a two-century leap of faith in each other's decent heart and good judgment?

Let's resolve again to trust the people of this country to do what is right. But let's also remember that, at times of crisis, our people can only choose wisely if their leaders first summon the courage and wisdom to articulate to them what is possible.

-- Powder (Powder47keg@aol.com), February 02, 2000

Answers

He won't win, because he tells the truth, and the truth hurts; and as a rule, the one it hurts the most is the one that tells it.

Already the media is asking him what he'll do if he's locked out of future debates. The vultures are circling...

-- Key Employee (yuiop@k.bd), February 02, 2000.

Alan Keyes is a fantastic interesting man. You might even think of him as the moral compass for all politicians. I just honestly believe that to be president, you need to have had training in elected office at other levels. There is a heck of alot more to being president than being able to articulate strongly held beliefs. Now, if Mr. Keyes would go get some training as a senator somewhere, I might be able to vote for him at a later date. Senator John McCain's the right man for the job at this time. The dignity of the Office of the United States President must be restored.

-- Vern (bacon17@ibm.net), February 02, 2000.

"I just honestly believe that to be president, you need to have had training in elected office at other levels."

Like George Washington? -FF-

-- Founding Father (w@sntelected.com), February 02, 2000.

Qualifications to be president? Here you go:

George Washington - Surveyor, Planter

John Adams - Teacher, Lawyer

Thomas Jefferson - Writer, Inventor, Lawyer, Architect

Andrew Jackson - Soldier

Zachary Taylor - Soldier

Andrew Johnson - Tailor

James A. Garfield - Teacher

Theodore Roosevelt - Rancher

Woodrow Wilson - Teacher

Warren Harding - Newspaper Editor

Herbert C. Hoover - Engineer

Harry S. Truman - Haberdasher

Dwight D. Eisenhower - Army General

John F. Kennedy - Journalist, Writer

Lyndon B. Johnson - Teacher

Jimmy Carter - Peanut Farmer

Ronald W. Reagan - Actor

George H. W. Bush - Oil Executive

William J. Clinton and the rest - Lawyers

Keyes isn't exactly fresh out of high school, his qualifications (from his website) are:

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Social and Economic Council

Assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations Republican Leader

Republican candidate for President 1996

Twice Republican nominee to the US Senate for the state of Maryland

Former Vice President of Ronald Reagan Alumni Association

1992 featured speaker at Republican National Convention, Houston, TX

Newly-elected President of the Ronald Reagan Alumni Association

Citizen Activist

Former President of Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)

Founder of National Taxpayer Action Day

Founder and Chairman of the Declaration Foundation.

Author: Our Character, Our Future: Reclaiming America's Moral Destiny, softcover, 160 pages ISBN 0-310-20816-5

Masters of the Dream: The Strength and Betrayal of Black America, hardcover: ISBN: 0-688-09599-2, softcover: ISBN: 0-688-14618-X

Educator

Interim President of Alabama A&M University

Ph.D. in Government from Harvard University

Television and Radio Commentator

-- Powder (Powder47keg@aol.com), February 02, 2000.

Keyes cannot win because he is the antithesis of all that Clinton is and stands for, and Clinton is the embodiment of what the American people have become and want. They made that clear during the impeachment hearings. Clinton is not the cause of our nation's problems; he is a symptom. Keyes has the solution, a return to our nation's spiritual and moral roots, but it won't happen in time for him to get elected, at least not this year, if ever.

-- Markus Archus (markus@archus.com), February 02, 2000.

Y2K Pro,

You might be surprised at how many people in the republican party are color blind, and look at the issues instead of skin color. It seems to me that the democrats are the ones who like to "play the race card". It shouldn't even be an issue. The man speaks his mind and to me, he makes a helluva lot of sense.

I wonder what the dems would do against a black candidate? They can't claim racism can they?

-- Powder (Powder47keg@aol.com), February 02, 2000.

Vern, I'd rather have an honest, moral bricklayer in the Oval 0ffice, that the gaggle of arrogant moral degenerates we see in the White House today.

Unfortunately, America has become a land of pragmatic compromisers. We have forgotten how to stand for what is good just because it is the right thing to do. A lot of our men fought and died in our various wars because they thought it was right, but we won't even vote for the right man if we think we might find ourselves on the losing side. Well IMHO, it's better to lose fighting for what's right than let some new Klintonoff destroy what is left of our Christian heritage without at least casting a ballot against him.

And if there aren't enough good folks willing to stand? Well, a country usually gets the government it deserves. In that case, we might as well bend down, grab our ankles and prepare for insertion, because we're finished as a free moral people.

Shoot, the moral heart of this country may have already stopped beating - the body just hasn't fallen yet. No matter, I'm going to vote for Keyes anyway, even if I'm the only man in the country who does so. Because He'll win? Probably not; because I believe it's the right thing to do.

-- elskon (elskon@bigfoot.com), February 02, 2000.

"I wonder what the dems would do against a black candidate?"

Does the name "Clarence Thomas" strike a familiar note?

-- Markus Archus (markus@archus.com), February 02, 2000.

It is always frightening to me when a "politician" stands up and starts talking about the return to moral values that our nation once stood upon. Was it moral to enslave people? was it moral to deny women and minorities the vote? I just have to laugh when people talk about how moral our nation used to be and how it is now. Legislating morality would be a crime equal to any of the supposed egregious acts which have "demoralized" our government.

Whose morals are we going to return to? Those of the religious right?? Do the so-called christian morals override those of any other culture or religion?? This Keyes is another frightening figure, like Pat Robertson, and I would not go anywhere near a candidate mouthing off about a return to those principles which denied equal wages for equal work to women, and who condoned the lynching of people.

Return to moral principles? Please. keep you moral principles in your own life and allow me to determine my own. All you need is love-all together now-all you need is love......

-- futureshock (gray@matter.com), February 02, 2000.

futureshock lackng grey matter, What post are you replying to? I see no mention of anyone denying women equal pay or advocating lynching. Certainly not Alan Keyes. All I see is a desire to return to some semblence of civilization.

-- notsonutz (notsonutz@as.you), February 02, 2000.

My point exactly, Markus.

Fshock,

Don't you people legislate your (im)morality on us either. I couldn't say it any better than three of the founders of this country could:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here." ---Patrick Henry

"Statesmen...may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand...The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a Greater Measure, than we have it now, They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty.

We have no Government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." ---John Adams

The Bible is the Book upon which this Republic rests. ---Andrew Jackson

-- Powder (Powder47keg@aol.com), February 02, 2000.

I did take some "liberty" with Keyes-he did not mention women and lynchings, BUT if our constitution were founded on the Bible and absolute virtues, and because slavery was allowed to exist for 90 years after that founding and women were denied the right to vote for many, many more years after that, one can only logically conclude that the Bible stands for slavery and denying suffrage-I am gonna go right home and tell my wife I am the boss and she must honor me-I am going to leave your religious nut thread alone now as I should know that there is no arguing with those who feel the "christians" have done such a great job in this country. It is completely insane to think that one must be religious to be moral. A corollary to that would be that all atheists must be immoral. This is outrageuos and far from the truth(though I am not an atheist) BTW I know ya'all are praying for my soul to be saved by Jee EE sus-sorry, My god's love is completely unconditional-I was born with it. But your prayers are appreciated.

-- futureshock (gray@matter.com), February 02, 2000.

Good riddance!

-- Powder (Powder47keg@aol.com), February 02, 2000.

Nice strawman, futureshock

By stating that your opponents stand for slavery and oppressing women you have an easy target to attack. Unfortunately for you it has nothing to with what Keyes is advocating. So, if you want to really oppose slavery and oppresion of women, don't be suprised if Poweder and I set up the rally you attend to to express that opposition.

I liked liberals much better when they chanted "Power to the People" and "Question Authority". Even if they were living off their parents income at the time.

Watch six and keep your...

-- eyes_open (best@wishes.2all), February 02, 2000.

"I think the true test of a genius is the ability to see the follies of one's own times. The ability to change one's own times is the true test of a leader. And the ability to do both is the true test of a visionary who will never be elected. "

- Marilyn vos Savant

-- (@ .), February 02, 2000.

Alan Keyes will have more than your vote, elskon. I have been looking forward to being able to vote for him for the last four years.

Can he win? I dunno. But I am fed up with voting for politicians "who can win," and when they do win they act just like the ones we thought we were replacing.

I don't know where y2kpro's post was. I am assuming it was there somewhere. We must have some kind of truth filter on the site. Kudos to the sysops.

gene

-- gene (ekbaker@essex1.com), February 02, 2000.

Gene:

"I am fed up with voting for politicians "who can win," and when they do win they act just like the ones we thought we were replacing."

ABSOLUTELY! I'm sick of party hacks on both sides of the isle - more concerned by what "resonates" with voters than the good of the country. They're actors playing to an audience, not statesmen.

-- elskon (elskon@bigfoot.com), February 02, 2000.

What a nice thread. I'm glad I didn't pass it by. Thanks Eyes Open, and Elskon and Gene and all the others who posted who understand that God is FOR women, not against women. And Alan Keyes Proves that God is NOT for slavery.("God is for slavery" is just another media Slur against God). But what we have Today are Families in chains; we pay more in taxes today than the Egyptian serfs Ever did, and families are torn apart as a result. We really need divine intervention, and Alan Keyes is a lightening rod for that intervention. It takes Much more than lipservice; it takes obedience and so far Keyes hasn't backed down. If he's willing to Refuse to Bow to the idols of this immoral world, then we should be ready and willing to vote for him.

God keep you, Alan!

-- DB (tomG@h.com), February 02, 2000.

My first time to post on this forum, and I've enjoyed the dialog I've read for some time.

I feel strongly that Alan Keyes is the candidate for America. I have watched his TV program for years (until the network canceled it when he became a candidate). He is consistent in his beliefs, unfailingly conservative in social and fiscal matters, always constitutionally correct (Roe v Wade notwithstanding), and a solid Christian who seems to practice what he preaches.

I love that he doesn't flip-flop according to polls, depending on the state he's campaigning in. Just keeps saying the same truths articulately and passionately from his heart. I believe he has the courage of his convictions and would make the best President for America.

If enough of us vote for him (regardless of whether he has a "chance" to win or not), he will win. Vote your heart and your convictions, and don't give in to the media polls. We know they lie, so why believe their polls? I'm voting for Alan Keyes.

-- Kathy (kathyp@airmail.net), February 02, 2000.

Thanks for your comments, Kathy, and welcome aboard!

-- Powder (Powder47keg@aol.com), February 02, 2000.

I have been supporting Alan Keyes ever since he ran for Senator in Maryland. The press tried to destroy him then because he stood up for what was right and said so. I voted for him too, but he didn't win that time. If you don't vote at all, that's when you throw your vote away. Vote for Alan. Forget the rest.

As for John McCain, his nickname is John McNasty, and his color is RED. He didn't do anything to help any POWS in Vietnam while he had the chance as Senator. So he's no "hero" whatever the press might say.

Remember, here's a voting tip: whoever the press hates the most, vote for that person. He or she is the one who isn't bought.

-- Marie (pray4peace@compuserve.com), February 02, 2000.

"but general do they have a chance? Do they have a chance? Hell Ye--" The President and General Buck Turgidson from DR Strangelove.

I think Alan has a chance... he's cool in my book.

-- jeremiah (braponspdetroit@hotmail.com), February 02, 2000.

I will vote for Alan Keyes, even if I have to do a write in vote. This man knows what America as founded on. I think Most of Alabama would fill the same.

-- ET (bneville@zebra.net), February 04, 2000.

Keyes has our votes. His platform represents the variety of reasons we chose to homeschool and it is the ONLY one that puts the Constitution first and foremost.

-- Will continue (farming@home.com), February 04, 2000.