November 23, 1999

"What Does Alan Keyes Stand for?"

(Begin video clip)

Alan Keyes, Presidential Candidate: I think we need to move in directions that will put power and control back in the hands of individual consumers and decision-makers.

How they can pretend that killing babies in the womb, killing our future in the womb respects the obligation to secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity? I want to make sure we'll have judges who will read the Constitution according to its terms and respect it. One promise we can't keep is the promise that the government is going to manage the money that people earn over the course of their lifetimes better than the people who earn that money.

We're probably by now galloping around the town square in Gomorrah, and if we don't do something about it, if we don't do something about it, we will have lost the moral foundations that sustain our liberty.

(end video clip)

Bobbie Battista, Host: Who is that candidate? Alan Keyes might not tell you what you want to hear, but he will tell you what you he thinks you need to hear. And if he can't win the presidency himself, will he convince you to make a moral choice at the polls?

(applause)

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to TALKBACK LIVE. Yes, Virginia, there are other Republicans hoping to win the presidential nomination. George W. Bush might be hogging the spotlight, but among others vying for voter attention is Alan Keyes.

A recent CNN/USA Today poll shows Alan Keyes has just 2 percent of support among Republican candidates. Is it lack of money, lack of exposure or something in his clear and uncompromising message? Alan Keyes, welcome to the show. Nice to have you with us.

Keyes: Glad to be here. Thank you.

Battista: We're lining up a lot of questions from the audience for you, but let me get things started here. The New York Times a few months ago called you "the invisible man" of the Republican Party. Why is that and why aren't more of the party faithful paying attention to you?

Keyes: Oh, a lot of people are paying attention. I think the question is why your polls continually lie, and why, for instance, I get reports from all my constituents that when they are polled, either my name's not included or it's not accepted as an answer. Polls taken up in New Hampshire where the fellow said, oh, we inadvertently left out Alan Keyes. So the notion that we should rely on these phony polls and that they tell us something about what people are really doing is a notion that I reject. I think we're just being manipulated into accepting a virtual reality that does not correspond to what's really going on.

I have a lot of intense support amongst people in the Republican Party, and I think the only problem of invisibility I've had is the invisibility im posed upon me by the media because they refuse to allow a candidate with a black skin to be anything but a racial candidate.

And I'm sick of them, and I said that several weeks ago. I stand before the American people with a message that speaks to everybody, and the fact that I refuse to play the role of a Jesse Jackson as a special pleader for some racial constituency ought not to keep me from being able to compete with fairness on an equal basis with other candidates.

Battista: But you do admit that there is a split going on within the Republican Party? You were quoted as saying that it's a struggle between the "money is god" Republicans and the "God is god" Republicans.

Keyes: Well, I think that that's very true. It's a split mainly between a narrow and elite leadership that is seeking to abandon the moral principles of the party and the country, and the heart of the grassroots Republicans, which is a heart that reflects those American principles, and that understands, I think, that right now we don't have an economic crisis, we don't have an international crisis, we don't have an international crisis:

We've got the deepest and most challenging moral crisis in the history of our nation and we've got to deal with it as a matter of first priority for the sake of our children.

Battista: Let me go to the audience here. Joy, question.

JOY: Yes. I wish you would expound on how your measures of correcting this moral decay would come about.

Keyes: See, I think that we have to understand in the end it's up to people themselves, in our families and our churches and in our communities to address that issue in terms of what we are going to do. But government has made a corrupting contribution by abandoning basic principles of conscience and integrity in important areas of policy, starting with the fundamental premise of our whole way of life: that our rights come from the creator, God, that it is not a matter of human choice and human will that constitutes our claim to dignity.

That's an important element of justice and of conscience. If we have abandoned that in our courts and in our laws, then we have abandoned the very foundation stone of American morality. And I think unfortunately that as long as we sustain the regime of abortion and things like this, we have abandoned our basic principles as surely as we did when we had the institution of slavery.

And just as we couldn't survive half slave and half free, we can't survive if for the sake of sexual licentiousness and convenience we have abandoned the fundamental principle of our way of life, that God is the ultimate source of our rights and we must use those rights with respect for the existence and authority of the creator.

Battista: And going along with that, as I understand it, you don't think too much of the separation of church and state?

Keyes: I don't think too much of it. I think that it's a lie to tell people that it's in the Constitution. It is nowhere in the Constitution. And the whole invented doctrine is contradicted by our entire history. For instance, there was a controversy down in Alabama over whether or not a judge could put the Ten Commandments up in the courtroom of his court. Some federal judge says you can't do that, it violates separation. If that is true, how come the Ten Commandments are etched in stone on the walls of the Supreme Court of the United States?

This is a lie we are being told. The truth is that the First Amendment guarantees to us the free exercise of religion. That means the right to live and act out our basic religious beliefs, not just to believe them in our heads, but to live according to those beliefs in terms of how we run our businesses, lives and communities. That's what's actually in the constitution and should be respected.

Battista: Question, Barbara, comment?

Barbara: What provision do you plan to make for the children that are born of an unwanted pregnancy? I mean, we, you know, we bring kids into the world and we've got to be able to take care of them.

Keyes: Well, who is we? See, that's the first question I ask.

Barbara: We...

Keyes: Who is we?

Barbara: We, we, all of us.

Keyes: I have--wait a minute, I have three children, OK? It is not the job of you or anybody else to care for my children. It's my job. It is my obligation before God and my fellow men to care for my children. So the first thing we need start doing is to enforce our understanding of parental responsibility, starting with those people who are out there--particularly men who are out there--begetting children and turning their backs on those children, acting like they don't have any responsibility for them. This is bad.

Second, we need to reform our understanding of sexual relations. We have seen in the media and elsewhere the promotion of an understanding of sexual relations that says it's all about pleasure, and self indulgence and so forth. It's not. The time to think about those children is before you have sex. The time to think about your obligation as a human being and a parent is when you are shaping your understanding of the sacred activity of procreation, so that you won't go out and for the sake of lust and pleasure act in such a way as to beget children you don't want to take responsibility for.

Battista: So we...

Keyes: I think it's time we got back to the civilized understanding of human sexual relations that has helped to produce decency in societies for thousands of years.

Battista: So would you push for a constitutional amendment banning abortion? Would that be a priority?

Keyes: I think given what the courts have done we have to have a human life amendment, yes. They have violated the very terms of the Constitution itself. As I was pointing out the other night, they act as if the unborn are not mentioned in the Constitution, and again, they lie. In the preamble to the Constitution, regarded as an important and preeminent statement of the goals and purposes and principles of the whole form of government we have, the constitution said that our aim is to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Our posterity are those not yet born, whether they are going to be born a hundred years from now, or going to be born six months from now, that's our posterity. And if our purpose of the whole government is to secure the blessings of liberty for those who are not yet born, how does killing them in the womb accomplish that purpose?

Battista: I've got to take a break at this time. Up next, "Galloping Towards Gomorrah: Moral Decay, Self Discipline, God and Guns." I'll be back in just a second.

(Commercial break)

Battista: We are back, and the audience is talking. Pat takes issue with Alan Keyes. Go ahead, Pat.

PAT: Yes, Mr. Keyes, the lady asked the question as to what you would do with the children that are unwanted, and you seemed to avoidance answering that question. What do you do with unwanted children? Do you put them up for adoption or just ignore them?

Keyes: No, I didn't avoid the question at all, but I really question the premise in the context of the abortion discussion. It's like people in the 19th century who used to say, "We can't get rid of slavery. What will we do with the freed slaves? What will happen to all these slaves if we just let them go?" and so forth. That was exactly the kind of argument that was made against doing what was right.

The fact that you face a problem if you do justice doesn't mean that you're justified in doing injustice. The first step is to do what's right, so let's get that straight. The fact that you or somebody else doesn't want a child doesn't justify this society in killing that child, and we need to get this clear before we go on with any part of the discussion, because your point does not justify the enormous violation of principal that is taking place.

Second, I spend a good deal of my time helping to raise funds for crisis pregnancy centers, adoption agencies, things that will actually help in the time of decision and crisis to reach out to individuals, and to support and sustain them as they make a decision that's going to be right for them and right for the child. We do need to do that, but that's not something that can be done by some government bureaucrat. As I often encourage people in my audiences at these gathering, we have to take on the responsibility ourselves. We have to be willing to stand up in our communities and begin to reach out--one on one, person to person--to get involved in these efforts that are taking place and being organized pretty much in every community around America, so that we will reach out a helping hand and pull people back from the brink of such an awful decision that takes life instead of respecting it. So I have been working hard to help people put together the alternatives that have to be there.

Battista: Sheik in the audience wants to take this a step further into family values.

SHEIK: Mr. Keyes, good afternoon. My question to you is: What is your view on American family values as it stands today? And if you see it is not, you know, right, or--how do you plan to rectify it if you don't see that there is a lack of family values?

Keyes: Well, I know we talk a lot. I think we have a lack of respect for certain moral ideas and principles, but it is not necessarily in our families. I go around this country and I am very encouraged by what I see. I think most Americans are decent, hard- working, God-fearing people, doing their best to do a job of work, raise their families--sometimes against enormous odds, whether they are single mothers or working families trying to work two jobs so that they can put food on the table, paying enormous taxes, working under all kinds of strains and stresses, and yet still, the people I meet are decent folks who are doing their best not only to help their own families, but through their churches and community groups they're putting time in to help other people.

So before we act as if we're such bad folks, I think we need to remember that a lot of the impressions we get are impressions being created by a media that refuses to put the spotlight on the good things about this country, and I think based on that greater confidence in ourselves we need to restart retaking responsibility from government bureaucrats and agencies that have not done the job very well and put it back in the hands of community-based, faith-based institutions that will do the job better because they respect individuals in their moral responsibility as well as their needs.

So I would start by saying that I am not sure that so-called family values are something that's absent from American families. I think our confidence in ourselves is something we need to rebuild based on a strong sense of our moral principles and commitment.

Battista: We do have to take another break at this time, and when we come back, we'll find out a little more about the Keyes plan to eliminate the income tax, we'll also talk about foreign policy and gun control. We'll be back.

(Commercial break)

Battista: We are back. We are talking with Alan Keyes, presidential candidate in the Republican Party. Anna has a question about taxes.

ANNA: Yes, I have a question. I understand you plan to eliminate income taxes. I would like to know how are you planning to pay for the bills of the country?

Keyes: Well, I think we need to return to the original Constitution of the country. The income tax was an innovation, it was put in place along with the 16th Amendment in the early part of this century as part of a radical experiment that I think has pretty much failed. One of its first fruits and consequences was the Great Depression and the whole mess that resulted from that.

During the course of the first century and more of this country's existence, the federal government was constitutionally prohibited from imposing an income tax. The government was funded with tariffs, duties and excise taxes. We made people from overseas, foreign business people and companies who wanted to sell their goods in our market, contribute to keep the lights on in our market and pay for the security of our market and make sure that we could keep things going since they were going to benefit and profit from their participation here. I think that's fair. Second, we had sales taxes, excise takes they were called instead of an income tax. The advantage of that is that your actually in control of how much you pay in the way of taxes. You have a market basket of goods and services that is not taxed, basic necessities that are needed for life, so that if you're poor, you're on a fixed income or you just want to get out from under taxation because you can't afford it right now, all you would have to do is be frugal with your purchases and confine them to those basic necessities.

When you're feeling like you have a little more money to spare and you can afford some of the other items that are more superfluous luxuries and things of that kind, then you participate in the taxed economy and make your contribution by those means, but we would be in control. We wouldn't have to beg people in the legislature to please let us keep a few more cents of our own hard earned dollars. We'd be in control, and by being frugal, by saving, by having a sense of how we wanted to control the pattern of our own spending, we would be able to control the burden of taxation that fell on our families, so that if we were at a time we needed to save some money against needs that we had for a vacation, for the children's education, for a down payment on a house, we would just be more careful in our purchases and we could reduce our tax exposure. Right now, the only people who can do that successfully are the rich, they can hire accountants and lawyers and all these expensive folks. I think it's time we brought that kind of control over their economic destiny back within the reach of ordinary folks, so that there would be a chance for them to build up some wealth that they can pass on to their children.

Battista: But with a country that is so far in debt--I mean, personal debt--do you think that most people have that kind of discipline?

Keyes: Oh, sure. One of the reasons we're in debt is because--as I recall--I don't know--the figures probably changed, but when I was at CAGW, a survey had been done in the '80s that showed that after they pay for food, clothing, shelter and transportation, and pay their taxes at all levels, 78 percent of Americans had no money left. That meant that their surplus was being taxed away and they were basically just on a treadmill of necessity, which is what most of us feel like most of the time. Well, if you feel that way it's because it's true, and I think by putting more of their own money under people's control you would give them greater leeway to save and they would get a greater sense of both control and responsibility for their own financial affairs, which it's hard for a lot of people to feel right now because they're barely keeping up.

Battista: Amadeo (ph), question on international trade.

Amadeo: Yes. Mr. Keyes, as you know, the world is becoming increasingly more global. I wanted to get your thoughts on NAFTA and other trade pacts, and what kind of initiatives will you take to increase international trade?

Keyes: Well, the world is becoming increasingly global, but I don't think that means that we should let the American people be taken for a ride with a lot of this collectivist trade stuff that's been going on over the last several decades. I think we have been seriously short changed by a lot of these agreements, because we have the best market in the world. Most of the countries in other parts of the world are fueling their development and prosperity by selling into our market. Now, I ask you to think about this. If you owned a best mall in an area and people want to sell there, don't they have to pay you rent? And they have to pay you a premium because your mall is more attractive than somebody else's that--where they can't make as much profit.

We have been bargaining away the premium that the American people should be getting when we allow foreign countries to get access to our market, and we have been sacrificing--in addition to that money, we've been sacrificing jobs and we've been basically having to pay ourselves for the development that other countries are enjoying as a result of our market, because our taxes go up to compensate for the lower revenues coming in from tariffs and duties. This is not fair and I would want to bring this to an end and have a trade policy that aimed to maximize the return to the American people for the enormous strong market that is produced by our work and sacrifice.

Battista: We have a lot of young people in the audience today and they certainly have issues that are dear to them. Michelle, question on school violence.

Michelle: I want to know how you plan to help gun control and violence in the schools?

Keyes: Well, I plan to help violence in the schools, one, by supporting efforts to restore two things, a strong sense that moral education is part of education and I think we've gotten away from that. We've had all kinds of trendy experiments with moral relativism and other junk and I don't think this has helped. I think one way to do that is to put parents back in control of education, that's why I support school choice. Parents should be able to send their children to schools that reflect their faith and values, schools of their choice, where they can have an influence over a curriculum that goes beyond just what information kids are given and that affects how their consciences will be shaped, how their character will be developed.

Moral education is the key, I believe, to real success in addressing violence. Second, we need to have strong enforcement of the laws that are on the books against felons, against children having guns. Right now, we have an administration that's not even bothering to enforce the law, and that makes no sense at all.

And third, we need to get away from the gun control fallacy. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to our people to keep and bear arms, not just so we can hunt, but so we can protect our liberties at the end of the day. We shouldn't have so little confidence in ourselves that we are willing to give up this precious right of self- preservation. Instead, we should be doing what is necessary to establish a sense of moral self-confidence that we will not abuse this right because we are still a people capable of controlling ourselves in the face of be it guns or other kinds of temptations that destroy our society.

So I think in the end it's not gun control but self-control that is the key to the future.

Battista: And we have to take another break. We'll continue with Alan Keyes in a moment.

(applause)

(Commercial break)

Battista: Just participation from outside the show here. I don't know. I'm sorry. I don't know your name.

RICHARD: My name is Richard Cohen (ph).

Battista: Richard Cohen from Brooklyn, New York?

RICHARD: Well, originally. From Plainfield, New Jersey today.

(laughter)

Battista: Talking--talking about taxation, because you are an accountant.

Briefly tell us very quickly.

RICHARD: I'm a CPA, and I'm saying that taxation, every time Congress or the president or whomever decides that we want to change taxation, it's another way for me to make more money. I think it's terrific. I think--I think every time that somebody wants to change the tax laws, it's just wonderful.

What I think any president ought to do is come up with the next four years and quit worrying about the tax laws. Let the IRS catch up. (laughter)

(applause)

Keyes: I think what you just said is indicative of our problem, because it is the accountants and the tax lawyers and so forth who have every reason to be happy about this very complex system. But what about the folks who can't afford fancy lawyers and accountants?

I believe the sales tax is good. Why?

First, the whole economy would reorganize to help people save those tax dollars. If you had certain tax-free goods and services, for instance, immediately Kmart-style stores would string spring up of tax-free goods that would specialize in that.

So you wouldn't have to go to some accountant to figure out how to save your taxes; you'd just shop in those stores and you'd know right away. It would be within the reach of ordinary Americans to get the kind of tax breaks that are now reserved only for the wealthy and for those who can afford all these fancy accountants and lawyers.

Battista: Let's dip into foreign policy for a minute here. Jess, from Pennsylvania, go ahead.

JESS: Yes. I just--I've heard from several sources that many people believe that in the next four to seven years China may attempt to take Taiwan back by force. Do you think that we should intervene as we did in Kosovo, or what is your--what is your stance on that issue?

Keyes: Well, I have to say I don't think we should intervene as we did in Kosovo, because our intervention in Kosovo was unjustified and was in fact a violation of basic principles on non-aggression that we ourselves have promoted in the world for many years.

Kosovo was a civil war situation inside a sovereign state where we bombed people back to 1945 because they refused to accept a dictated solution, and then at the end of the day stopped bombing by giving into all the demands they had made before we started bombing then. It was an absolutely bankrupt policy, morally and in terms of our respect for principle. In the case of Taiwan, though, we have a strong, clear relationship. We have guarantees of Taiwanese security that go back many years. And I think we ought to respect that and make it clear to the communist Chinese that we will not accept any military aggression against Taiwan in an effort to impose some dictatorial solution on a country that is far freer in its political institutions than communist-dictated China. And I think it should be a very important keystone of American policy to sustain that commitment to Taiwan's independence and security.

Battista: Got to take another break. We'll be back in just a moment.

(applause)

(Commercial break)

Battista: Question about affirmative action--Gloria, go ahead.

GLORIA: Mr. Keyes, I understand that part of your political campaign is to get rid of affirmative action. Did affirmative action play any part of you getting where you are today?

Keyes: Well, two things are true. One, my formulation has usually been, or was in the past, I was for affirmative action and against quotas. Then in the early '90s, they basically passed legislation that turned affirmative action into a quota system, and I oppose that. I believe that efforts to heal the scares of past discrimination are quite justified. Make sure that people have access to education, to preparation, to training, that they're aware of and have equal access to opportunity.

But you're taking the wrong step when you then go beyond that, and say I'm going to dictate the outcome, I'm not just going to prepare you for the competition, I'm going to dictate that you will come in third because of the color of your skin. I think it is wrong to discriminate against white folks because of the color of their skin or Asians because of their background as it was to discriminate against black people. And you're not going to correct past injustices by perpetrating new ones. Second, I don't think that affirmative action played a big role in my background. It probably played some. But I'll tell you something, asking me that question and then expecting that I will necessarily support it would be like asking somebody who benefited from segregation whether or not we should continue to have unjust, racist laws. It doesn't matter if you benefited from injustice. It should still be brought to an end.

Battista: We are completely out of time. I'm sorry we lost 15 seconds--15 minutes earlier. Alan Keyes, thanks very much for joining us today. Appreciate your time.

Keyes: Thank you.

Battista: And we'll see you again tomorrow on TALKBACK LIVE.