January 19, 2000

Question: What is your campaign strategy for getting people out on Monday night?

Alan Keyes: We are a grassroots campaign, and our strategy has been the same throughout--going out, reaching people, getting them to motivate the people that they know in their family and in their church and in their neighborhood, so that they will turn out at the caucuses. It is really people reaching people, in order to maximize the result in the turnout. It has been very effective in terms of getting good turnouts at all the events that we have had, and we are hoping that that will be the same when it comes to caucus time. It really depends on the efforts of the individuals who commit themselves to the Keyes effort.

Question: You talked about how the debates have been good for the Keyes effort. The last FEC filing that I looked was about December, before the debates started, and you had at that point raised about 2 PI million dollars. Have you seen an upturn in contributions with all the exposure through the debate process?

Keyes: Over the previous quarter, I think our fundraising has shot up about 80%, from what I heard. And we have also seen a good influx in the last several weeks of volunteers in both Iowa and New Hampshire, several thousand new people, in fact, have signed up. That is a combination of things, though. I think it is partly the good, positive results in terms of the presentation of issues during the debates. And I think it is also the effect of people focusing now, in a serious way, on the fact that these votes are coming up, and that it is time to take a stand. And so people are making their choices.

Moderator: Let's go to viewer calls. Mississippi, Republican line:

Caller: Ambassador Keyes, how are you doing?

Keyes: Pretty good, how are you?

Caller: I really admire what you stand for. I'm a true Ronald Reagan conservative, and you are the only one that's really standing up for what us conservatives in America really stand for, and I'm real proud of you. The abortion issue. My son, my wife's doctor told her to have an abortion with him. In this past year he was a valedictorian of his senior class. I just pray for you every day, that you'll . . . I know the national media, you know, they don't want to give you any attention whatsoever. I want you to know that true conservatives here in Mississippi are strong behind you.

Keyes: Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that very much.

Moderator: Hartford Connecticut, "other" line.

Caller: Oh! Mr. Keyes. Let me just turn this TV down. Okay. I had a question for you. Very eloquent speaker. Really appreciate your view. Trying to get your message across to many black Americans, such as venues like BET. To me it is sad, I don't get to see you on these types of shows. What is your comment on that, and, you know, will you be on these other type of shows?

Keyes: Well, I try to answer the requests that come in. Unfortunately, we have found that because, I guess, I don't fit the stereotype that a lot of the people in the media have, the invitations haven't exactly come thick and fast. But we have responded whenever they do come in. The only shows I guess I kind of exclude usually from consideration are the more sensationalist kind of shows, I mean Jerry Springer type shows, that I consider really inconsistent with the dignity of politics. But there are a lot serious discussion shows, and other shows, particularly on BET and on public television and in other arenas, and as those requests come in we have responded to them. I think that in recent weeks we've actually seen an upturn in interest, which I think will carry over, and so we'll just have to see what happens.

But I do my best to get out there, because I think that the things I represent, particularly the need to address the real moral crisis that has affected our families, our children, our schools--I think that is on the minds of all Americans, across the board. It has no kind of racial tinge to it of any kind. And so that message carries in every community, and that's what I try to do.

Moderator: One of the newspaper articles I have today is that each of the campaigns has its own measure of success on Monday night. What will success be for the Keyes campaign?

Keyes: Success for the Keyes campaign is just the thought that we are doing God's work. And frankly, I think that our feeling about that has been good throughout. My aim is to try to present to people what I consider to be the best alternative given what I think is the real challenge we face of addressing the moral crisis, renewing our allegiance to the basic moral idea of this country's life, which is that our rights come from God and must be exercised in a way that respects the existence and authority of the Creator from whom they come.

We have presented that stance. I'll present it with integrity. I cannot make the choice for people, obviously. And if you do the best you can, and present what you deeply believe to be the right alternative, and people don't choose it, some might say that's a comment on me. Nah, I think it's a comment on them. And so at the end of the day we will just have to see what the people of this country want to do with it. But I will go on presenting that alternative, and if it is done with integrity, I think that folks who get involved with my campaign understand that that is our main standard and criterion, which we will not depart from. And so at the end of the day, even the people who would usually think in terms of polls and consultants, they don't bother me about that, because they know that it will not have an influence on what I say and do. I just believe that we have to get out there, offer what you conscientiously believe to be the best approach, and best arguments, the best grounded presentation that you can, and then leave it up to folks to decide.

Moderator: Erie, Pennsylvania, for Alan Keyes. Democrats line.

Caller: Good morning, Susan. Good morning, Mr. Keyes. It's an honor and a pleasure to be able to speak to you. I have watched all the debates, and without a doubt you have won every one of them. And the calls that come in after the debates overwhelmingly are for you. And I want you to know that I am a Democrat, I'm a Catholic, I'm white, and I love you.

Keyes: God bless you. Thank you. Appreciate it very much.

Moderator: Walpaka, Wisconsin. Republican line.

Caller: Yes, good morning Alan. What a pleasure and an honor to speak with you.

Keyes: Thank you.

Caller: I am a former U.S. Marine, and I want to let you know that I am outraged that our wonderful slick Willie let gays serve in the military. It is an outrage, and it is not in line with what the military stands for. And the one other concern that I have is the unprecedented array of new environmental regulations that are being pushed through the EPA by the United Nations. And that being recently, President Clinton authorized over a hundred and some million acres to be set aside never to be developed in the future. And I want to know what you are going to do to change that, if you become president, please. Thank you.

Keyes: I think when we will see a reversal of what has been the tendency in the Clinton administration to use the environmental issue as an excuse to concentrate power in fewer and fewer hands, and to abdicate the sovereignty of the country. I think that these things are not right. It's not that I have no concern about the environment. I believe we should take a trusteeship approach to environmental concerns. We do have an obligation to try to hand on our environment and planet to our future generations in a way that is intact.

But that doesn't mean that you don't use what you have got. We also have an obligation to build and develop this country's economic strength and its potential. We have to harness our creativity, our technological know-how, so we can use the resources God has given us at the same time that we respect the requirements of the planet and replenish those resources. And more and more ingenuity is being applied, and we need to harness that at the same time that we harness the basic interest people can have.

Consider, for example, some of the conservation approaches for species and so forth. I asked a question the other day during one of the debates that got a chuckle, but it is actually a serious question. Is there any shortage of chickens in the world? Are they in danger of extinction? The answer is, obviously not. Well, why? Because we eat them, that's why. Because there is a use for them in the marketplace. That shows and illustrates that self-interest can actually be harnessed in ways that will produce results that are better, in terms of conservation and in terms of respect for the environment. It is that kind of principle that I think we need to take, rather than what Clinton has done, which is to use environment as an excuse to pursue his own left-wing, totalitarian agenda, his own globalist agenda. I reject all of that. And a Keyes administration will turn away from all those policies, and respect our institutions--our Congress, our legislatures--those are the institutions that should be making decisions on behalf of the American people, not unrepresentative bodies in the United Nations.

Moderator: His first comment was on gays in the military.

Keyes: I believe that we need to return to the ban on gays in the military. The present situation is intolerable. And I know that John McCain support Clinton's policy of "don't ask, don't tell." I think it puts an intolerable burden on the military.

Consider what you are saying. You are actually looking at people who are homosexual, and you are kind of saying, "come on in, we'll wink at it." Right? Giving the impression that it is not something that is going to be looked upon as a violation. Meanwhile, the regulations stay in place, right? And the people who have responsibility in the military, who then come across information that suggests that those regulations are being violated--what are they supposed to do?

You have created, in effect, a gray area. And guess what happens in a military chain of command when you have that kind of gray area? You give rise to a lack of confidence, to resentment, to a lack of confidence on the part of military authorities in enforcing the regulations. And, of course, you give rise to possibilities of abuse, where subjective judgments can be interposed in order to play favorites and otherwise have trouble with individuals.

I think that it is the worst of all worlds. And so, in my opinion, given the requirements of military moral . . . and it is not just in the homosexual area. I think we need to retreat and back away from all these experiments that have introduced elements of sexual tension into the military--into the training process, into the service, particularly in combat areas--I think that it all needs to stop. Because that kind of introduction of sexual tension detracts from the military's real role, and demoralizes our forces. And that is exactly what has occurred.

And so in a Keyes administration, there would be a clear policy. We would return to the ban, and we would enforce that policy with integrity.

Moderator: Edgewater, Maryland is next. "Other" line.

Caller: Amen, Mr. Keyes. You are just incredible. You know, with independents growing as a group in this country in phenomenal ways, but with the number of voters at the lowest point ever, please tell America how the presidency is important to the life of this country, and how you would execute that.

Keyes: I think that one of the reasons that people have become increasingly apathetic in our political life is a sense that it doesn't make any difference, that in point of fact everything is dominated by money, and by all the puppet-masters who can manipulate these candidates with their contributions and other things, and that therefore we might as well give up, we don't have an impact.

I don't think that is true. And what we have tried consistently to do in the Keyes campaign is look people in the eye and say, "Wake up. You can make the difference, if you are willing to get involved. But mostly, if you are willing to have the courage of your convictions." All these people who go out and say, "You can't win, I'm not going to vote for you," are people whose actions become a self-fulfilling prophecy. They will never get anywhere. Their views will never triumph. Because they will be manipulated by people who put together these phony polls and do other things in order to prejudice the environment, preempt the choice of the people, and take over the process, put it in the hands of a few.

So I think that leadership has to challenge folks to understand, one, that the people of this country are in charge, if they are willing to have the moral courage to exercise that authority which they have.

And then you have to stand up and offer people a real choice. The other thing that I think has been discouraging to folks is all the manipulation, where people essentially go out, they hire pollsters and consultants, figure out what people want to hear, and then their staffs do up papers and they spout the lines that they are supposed to spout, no matter whether they have real convictions about them or not. I think that discourages folks, because they realize that they are just being manipulated; they don't get real choices.

So I have made an effort, and will continue to make the effort, to be clear in this: what you hear from Alan Keyes is not because I think it is going to please you. I'll be quite frank about that. It is because I think it is what is best and right for this country. And if you agree with that, then have the courage of your convictions and stand with me. And if you don't, well, that's in your hands and in the hands of God. That's the way I feel about it.

If we restore that kind of integrity to the process, if people feel that it really matters, and that they are getting a true choice, a lot of people will come back into a system in which they feel that they can be effective.

Moderator: North Carolina, Democrats line

Caller: Mr. Keyes, this is a real Democrat speaking. A question I have for you is, recently it was revealed that Governor Bush had signed a race clause in a real estate contract in a summer home he bought. You have not questioned him about this action, neither has any of the other fellow candidates questioned him about this action. And the media has seemed to cover it up. Lastly, I'd like to make a comment about morals. You folks are so sanctimonious, so judgmental. And, you know, God said we are just people. Our greatest glory is nothing but dirty rags in the eyes of the Lord. And a little bit of humility would go a long way in your party.

Keyes: Two things. First of all, I am not responsible for G. W. Bush's actions. If you have a question about that, go to him. Ask him about it. I hadn't heard this particular report, but I have been critical of G. W. Bush for not taking forthright stands on things like the Confederate flag, where I think he showed a real indifference to the feelings of people in the black community, and so forth. So I don't have to answer for G. W. Bush. He is not my candidate; I don't support him; I wouldn't be involved in this race if I thought that he was the best choice for the Republican Party; I do not think that. In fact, I think that if he gets nominated, the party is going to go down to a bitter defeat. We need somebody who can address the moral crisis of this country. He is both unwilling and unable to deal with that issue as a matter of top priority, and therefore think he will be defeated.

In terms of the second part, self-righteousness and all has nothing to do with it. All I do, when confronting the issues that have moral implications, is try to apply the moral principles of this nation's life. You and other Democrats may not like to be reminded of this, but America is founded on moral ideas. The idea, for instance, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. The whole concept of rights, which is the basis for our system and our way of life--these are moral ideas. Reject those moral ideas, and the system will collapse; we cannot sustain self-government if we turn our back on the basic moral principles that must shape our conscience, shape our laws, shape our behavior, if we are to remain a free people.

So these issues aren't issues of determination because you are self-righteous or anything else. They are issues that challenge the heart and conscience and character of the American people, as slavery did, as civil rights did. And so I raise these issues now because I think we have reached a critical stage: if we continue the sacrifice of our conscience in these matters, then we are going to lose our system of liberty and self-government.

If you don't care about that, that's your prerogative. But I think there are many people in this country who do care, and I am hoping to rally them to a cause that will save self-government in America.

Moderator: Senator Lott weighed in yesterday with the agenda for the Republican Congress. Here's the Washington Times today: "Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said yesterday that Republicans in Congress will not take on new issues this year. But Senator Edward Kennedy signaled that Democrats are coming in with a big new government blitz" As someone out there on the hustings on the presidential circuit, how does the Congressional agenda affect your campaign?

Keyes: Well, I think at the moment, probably not very much. I think that we need some bold approaches. But the aim of those bold approaches, unlike Senator Kennedy's stuff, is not to put more power in the hands of government so we can have more expansion, more domination of our lives, by government bureaucrats that are insensitive, in fact, to the needs of real people and that stand in the way of the wonderful things that I think can be accomplished by the creativity and ingenuity of the American people.

The key issues, I believe, in terms of what we do in the next few years--are we going to take advantage of the existing situation, prosperity and relative peace, in order to reclaim those areas of our liberty and rights that we have surrendered in the course of the 20th century?

Start with control over the money. The income tax system that we accepted at the beginning of this century is literally a system that hands over control of our money, takes it away from us, makes our politicians the gatekeepers of our own money. I often have commented during the debates--you have all these guys standing on the stage arguing about who is going to give the most to this family, and that family. And I'm sitting there thinking to myself, "What's the matter with us? What are these people giving you, anyway?"

And then you sit and think for a moment, and you think, "my own money." And you are supposed to be grateful to them because they are actually willing to let you keep a little more of it. You don't see through that? That means that they are in control of what you have produced through your labor. You don't even get to eat the bread that is earned by the sweat of your own brow. How much you get of it is determined by these gatekeeper politicians. That's not the way it was supposed to be. Our original Constitution forbade the income tax at the federal level. The government could not take this usurping, pre-emptive role.

So issues like that. Are we going to get back control of our money? Abolish the income tax. Go to a national sales tax, where people can decide for themselves, based on their patterns of consumption, how much they are going to pay in taxes at any given time and period.

Are we going to take back control of our schools, through school choice, putting parents back in the driver's seat, so that the money we spend on education follows the choice of parents, not educrats, not bureaucrats, but we will reestablish the sense that parents should be empowered to meet their responsibility and encouraged to take responsibility for the lives and education of their children.

I think that those key areas, or areas such as that, where our liberties have been taken away, where our responsibilities are being taken away, those are the issues that we need to address. Not giving more power to government, as Kennedy wants to do, but giving more control back to the people of this country, so that they can determine the destiny of their families and communities. That is what I would like to see happen.

Moderator: Maine, Republican line.

Caller: Hey, Mr. Keyes, I just want to thank you for standing on your guns, and everything, and not waffling it like we see so many times, and being true forth on the abortion issue, and morality and everything. I was just wondering, how do we get the Republican Party to relate to the young people, like me, myself.

Keyes: I'll be honest with you. I think that the best way to relate to young folks is simply to have a clear sense of what your standards and ideals are. I think that one of the characteristics of youth is that you haven't been rendered cynical by experience. Some people get battered about in life, and they lose the sense that there is a clear line to be drawn between right and wrong, and that even though we are, as human beings, often too week to do what is right, we can at least have respect for the principles and the standards, and keep striving in the right direction. I think that is one of the characteristics of youth that we ought to try to sustain throughout our life: that sense of idealism; that sense of the understanding that one should always be reaching for the better approach, the better way, the better result, the one that is going to put a smile on the face of God. I think that standing in that kind of position, and trying forthrightly, conscientiously, to think things through in a way that reflects that kind of a concern with maintaining integrity and standards--I think it will be very attractive to young people.

I also, of course, feel this is going to be attractive to a lot of other people who are, I think, discouraged and grieving for a country that seems more and more steeped in cynicism every day. So I think that is the approach I take and, by the way, it does seem to have a good effect. A lot of the folks who have been involved and have helped to keep the grassroots effort going for me, in spite of the opposition of the media and the lack of support from the corporate big money types--it has been people. And those people have been fueled, if you like, by the energy of that kind of youthful idealism, and it is what keeps the Keyes effort moving forward.

Moderator: Next is Fairfax, Virginia, third party line.

Caller: Mr. Keyes, I am a member of the Reform Party and a supporter of Pat Buchanan. And I was calling because I have two questions. I guess the first is, what is your position on the recent decision by the CPD regarding the debates criteria for the general debates? And the second is, regardless of the success or lack of success in your own campaign, given the commonality of positions, how do you think you might be able to work with Pat?

Keyes: Two things are true. One, I would like to be very clear--and I will champion this, I'll say it now, I'll champion it after I get the nomination, because I think it is the right approach. We need to establish an objective criterion in this country to get on the ballot to run for president. We should set that threshold at a level that will exclude frivolous candidacies, and all the things you have to do to make sure that the process is serious and dignified. But when you have a party that has established itself around the country, that has worked to meet that threshold criterion, and has successfully done so, the people who are nominated by that party should be included in the debate process. It should not be a matter of these phony polls. It should not be a matter of media coverage. None of those criteria reflect the will of the American people and their work.

We can't allow media moguls to be in charge of this process. So I promise you that if I get the Republican nomination, and the Reform Party or another party as well has qualified to be on the ballot around this country in a sufficient number of states to actually win the electoral votes required for the presidency, I believe that ought to be the criterion, and the only criterion, for inclusion in the debate.

And it doesn't make me afraid. You could fill that stage with people, and I would not be afraid, in terms of the debate and in terms of presenting forthrightly the issues that will appeal to the heart of the American people. I do believe we need to have a sufficient threshold that we don't get a lot of frivolous candidacies, but you are not talking about a frivolous candidacy with the Reform Party. Neither are you talking about it with Howie Phillips's Taxpayer Party. These are people who have worked for years, they have jumped through all the hoops, they have qualified as we say the law requires that they qualify, and therefore the media and the consultants and all these other intermediaries should not replace that simple, clear standard when it comes to inclusion in the debates. The American people ought to have the choices put before them, not filtered out by a bunch of oligarchs trying to keep them from hearing the truth. That's the stand I take, and it is the stand I will take.

Moderator: Question number two was do you see a way to work with Pat Buchanan in the future?

Keyes: Well, that kind of depends. I was disappointed when Pat left the Republican Party. I think, as I said at the time, it was a premature effort. We are fighting, in the Republican Party right now, over the question of whether a leadership not really committed to conservatism will continue in place, or whether conservatives will come together, vote their conscience, vote their principles, and do what they really can do--which is to choose a standard bearer who truly reflects the view that they have in their heart.

That fight is far from over, as we are seeing every day. And so I think that Pat left prematurely. And I am going to continue to fight that battle in the Republican ranks. We will, however, I believe, stand on a lot of common ground on a whole range and array of issues. And over time I think that that will help to produce effective coalitions in terms of achieving the results that we would like to see in terms of less government, in terms of more integrity in our foreign policy, in terms of defending our national sovereignty, getting out of organizations like the World Trade Organization, and so forth. I think that on those things, we will be able to forge alliances in this country to achieve the goals that I think conservatives share in common.

Moderator: Next telephone call: Elma, Washington. Democrats line.

Caller: Yes, good morning. I know that Ambassador Keyes is not the keeper of George Bush. But somebody should remind him that he is not running for President of Texas. I also would like to say that I resent the fact that many of the Republican candidates, in the tax reform, they treat us like we give only because it is a tax deduction. The American people are the most giving people on the earth, and they do not give just because it is a tax deduction.

Keyes: I think, though, that one of the things I find fault with, with the present income tax system over all, is that it does in fact create this situation where people are saying, "Well, you only give money because of the tax deduction." It's all cynical.

And this is a lie. Before we had this awful--I call it "slave"--tax, the income tax system, people gave money, built charities, built churches, did all the things that were necessary in this country to maintain the institutions of charity and faith and mutual cooperation. And they didn't require a tax deduction. It is a slur on the American people to suggest that this kind of coercion is what gets people to work together. I don't believe it.

It is why I think we need to abolish the income tax, get back to a system . . . and the national sales tax system I support would be a system where you had a market basket of basic goods and service that would be free of the tax, so that people who were poor, people on fixed incomes, and others who felt that at this time in their life they couldn't afford to pay so much in tax, could alter their patterns of consumption in order to avoid taxation.

And they wouldn't need a lot of expensive lawyers and accountants to help them figure out this tax break and that. The market itself would reorganize in order to show them where the goods are. You would have tax-free K-marts. You would have tax-free sections in the grocery stores and the department stores. Individuals with just a modicum of common sense, and no need to pay an expert at all, would be able to change their behavior and save on their federal taxes. That would put them in a position where they could make the decision how much they are going to give to their charities, to church, and to other things that they believe are right. And there would be no coercion, and there would be no obstacle to doing what they believed right, what they believed reflects their priorities.

And I trust the American people to make the right choices, when we put them in that situation. Which is why I want to give them back control of their own money.

Moderator: Auburndale, Florida, Republican line. Good morning, caller.

Caller: Good morning. I am a 66 year old white woman, life-long Republican, and I want you to know that you are the only candidate that we would even consider voting for in the Florida Primary. I just have a couple of documents here from 1952 and 1963, that showed in Florida that the Bible was required reading in public schools--not to teach doctrine, but to recognize our Creator and His instructions on how we should live. Can you tell me when the Constitution was changed?

Keyes: It wasn't changed. It hasn't changed. What happened was that a lot of liberal judges started their pronouncements and essentially have disregarded both our heritage, our history, and the actual words of the Constitution. The other day I got a question at one of the debates from one of the reporters, saying, "Well, what will you tell us about how you'll respect separation of church and state?" And she put it to me as if there was some Constitutional requirement that the President should respect separation of church and state.

Guess what? There's no mention of separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, the First Amendment was written, clearly, in order to do what? In order to keep the federal government from being able to impose any kind of uniform religious code or belief on the states and localities and people of this country. That is exactly what the federal judges have been doing. For the last several decades, they have been trying to impose a uniform regime which pushes God out of every area of our public life--out of the schools, out of the towns, and so forth.

What they are doing violates the letter and spirit of that First Amendment to the Constitution, which was intended to prevent federal coercion in religious matters from interfering with the ability of people in their states and communities to make the kind of choices that reflected, and carried into action, their religious beliefs. That's why the clause in the Constitution, by the way, it doesn't guarantee freedom of conscience only. It says the "free exercise." Remember what exercise is? Exercise isn't what you do when you are sitting in the chair thinking about running; it is what you do when you run, carrying into action what would otherwise simply be a thought in your mind.

So that free exercise clause means that in our workplace, and in our lives, and in our schools, and in the things we are doing, we have the Constitutional right to act in such a way as reflects our religious beliefs. And this is exactly what the courts have been taking away.

I will make it, and have made it, one of the keys of my campaign to present to people the truth about this issue, to try to wake up people of conscience so they will cease to be intimidated by the fiction that has been invented by these liberal judges, so that we can get back to a Constitution in which free exercise really means something.

Moderator: A caller in Michigan is on our third party line. Good morning.

Caller: Yes, what an honor to speak to you, Dr. Keyes.

Keyes: Thank you.

Caller: I would like to ask you a question about your interest in abolishing the income tax amendment, and establishing a consumption tax? My question is, if you are going to do something like that, it is my understanding that you have to get 100 senators and 435 representatives, and the states, to ratify any changes. So how would you realistically try to get in a consumption tax?

Keyes: Let me clarify something. The term "consumption tax" is a little broad for me, because it would include things like they have in Europe. Under the rubric of consumption tax, they have the VAT, the value added tax, that actually turns out to be a tax on production and productivity. And I do not support that approach, because I think you don't want to burden production. You don't want to burden that process which is actually producing the wealth and expanding the horizons of opportunity for your people.

What I propose is an excise tax--that's a tax on the retail sales of products in the marketplace, so that you impose it, to the best of your ability, only once in that process--not multiple taxation at all these different stages, but only once--and it is done in a transparent fashion, so that if the tax is set too high, people will know what is causing the problem, and how to remedy it, and who to go to to remedy it.

Second, in terms of implementing this idea: remember, what we need is to have a 2/3 majority, not all 100 senators, even though that 2/3 is a high threshold. But sometimes when we think about this, I believe, we need to be more dynamic in our thinking. If I succeed at what I am doing right now, rallying the forces of real and fundamental reform in this area in the Republican Party, then rallying those forces through winning the general election, we will rewrite the landscape of American politics. We will create a situation in which a clear governing majority exists in support of these views, and the Congress will then, in my opinion, fall in line or they will see themselves suffer at the midterm elections, you and I both know it.

So I will move quickly in those first two years to put this agenda on the table, and on the strength of the new coalition that we have created, I will move forward. That is the advantage, by the way, of being clear in your articulation of the issues. So that when I get elected, folks will know this agenda was just ratified by the American people, and we are going to move forward with it.

In case you have noticed, in the last several years, Reagan did it, to a certain extent in 1994 the Republicans did it in Congress--when you are clear and forthright in your stands on the issues, so that when you get elected people know exactly what it is that they voted into office, it is much easier then to move forward and implement what you have offered to the American people, because all the people in the political arena realize that your victory was a victory for those agenda items. And that is why I think it is a great asset to be somebody who is not just trying to tell people what they want to hear, but is clear on the issues, presents them forthrightly. If then they are chosen by the American people, we will know exactly what direction we should head in.

Moderator: Martha Borfin or Roanoke e-mails this Question: "I'm interested in the fervor that drives one to seek the presidency. Throughout history, there have been individuals, including most of the Founding Fathers, military figures, private sector and public servants, who have made enormous contributions to the direction of our nation. Martin Luther King comes to mind as one who will be revered far longer than any president of his time for changing the social conscience of the U.S.

"What inspires one to seek the ultimate visible role as president, when most of the work and long term persuasion of the nation occurs in small steps, behind the scenes?"

Keyes: I think you are right in your analysis of how the work is done. But I think that we come to critical times in our nation's history when things come to a crisis. And when, during that crisis, a clear articulation is needed--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, we have usually had folks in American life who rise to the occasion, and come forward to help articulate, on a national level, that kind of sense of principle and understanding that is needed to deal with the crisis. We did so during our great wars. We did so during the Civil War period, and so forth.

I think we have come to a moral crisis that requires precisely that kind of articulation, where over a range of issues--from what is happening with our families, what is happening in terms of our concepts of sexual responsibility, what's happening to our children in the womb, what's happening to our control of ourselves, of our money, of our schools--we are reaching a crisis of self-government.

That crisis cannot just be dealt with piecemeal, because very often when you concentrate on the pieces, people miss the overall picture, in which we are sacrificing our principles and destroying our character.

So I think we have reached a moment in which that kind of articulation is needed, so that the American people can understand the real nature of the crisis, respond to it in terms of our allegiance to our basic principles, and then apply that in each area of policy, to get back to a road that is consistent with self-government.

And I think that that does require participation. Because very often, if you see something like this, you move forward in other arenas, people will look at you and say, "Well, yeah, that's all well and good. But you are not out here. You don't have to convince these voters. You don't have to do this, or that. Therefore, we can't move ahead with what needs to be done."

I think there are times when you just have to stand in the arena and demonstrate that all those are pretty poor, sorry excuses, from people who simply don't have the capacity to articulate what is needed for the American people. And if you can stand in the arena and do it better than they can--and I have thus far done so, widely acknowledged to have done so--that proves that their excuses should not be accepted, that in point of fact we do have the ability to understand, to move the heart of the American people, and to move forward in a direction that restores our sense of principle and our basis for self-government.

I think we are at such a time of crisis, and at this time running for the presidency--if you do have an ability to articulate things in that way--may be the most effective thing that you can do. At least, that's how it has appeared to me in the course of the last several years. And it is why I am doing what I am doing.

Moderator: Next, Aida, Oklahoma, Republican line.

Caller: Mr. Keyes, I would like to make some statements, and then I have some questions. But before you answer me, I would like to give you all the points that I would like to make.

Moderator: Okay, caller, before you start, please recognize we have lots of callers, so the time has to be short.

Caller: Okay. I would like to say that I do admire your stand on abortion. I would like to point out to you that there is a larger percentage of white people who would support you than blacks, because you do expect people to do things for themselves. Just as they do not like Justice Thomas, they do not support you.

Now, I would like to make this statement. I do not think that you are any more moral than George Bush. He is a very deeply spiritual person--I'm not saying religious, I'm saying spiritual. He has tried to point out to you people--I think all of you are pro-life. His running mate would support all of his conservative principles. He is pro-life. The Bush family has adopted children. They also are very involved in supporting adoption, working for a maternity home, and raising funds.

And I am beginning to resent, in some way, your attitude and also that of Gary Bauer. I admire Gary Bauer, but he also has this attitude that he is the only pro-life person . . .

Moderator: Mr. Keyes, why don't you pick it up from there.

Keyes: Let me respond first of all, I think you entirely misunderstand the nature of the moral challenge. Colin Powell is a very moral man, a very spiritual man, a man who has done many things that I would admire, in terms of his own moral character and probity. I would not support him for president. And if he were put on a ticket, I would leave the Republican Party.

Why? Because he does not take the stand that is required from a moral point of view for the American people. The issue at stake here is not my morality versus George Bush's morality at some personal level. That is not the issue. It was not, by the way, the issue either when we confronted the Clinton problem, as I repeatedly said when others were misunderstanding it.

The challenge we face right now is our challenge as a people to renew our allegiance to our principles, and to get away from those policies which 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. As I said to the previous caller who was a Democrat, that has nothing to do with self-righteousness, or anything else. It is just a matter of simple necessity for this country to be true to its principles, or we lose everything we have. That's step number one.

Step number two. The question therefore is who can most effectively represent and articulate that moral perspective for the American people, right now in a time of crisis, when the election in fact will hinge, for the Republicans, on our ability to present that moral crisis effectively and make it the key issue of this campaign. If voters go into the voting booth and decide on the strength of the economy, Democrats will win--I hope you realize that--because we've got a booming economy. If they decide on whether the world is at war or at peace, and so forth and so on, Democrats will win, because the world is at peace. But if they decide on the basis of the moral crisis, and what party in fact has been contributing to the moral destruction of this country by leading us away >from our principles, that's the only chance Republicans have of victory.

So when I say something about G. W. Bush, it is not a comment about him personally, or about his morality, or anything else. I'll tell you right in front, though--he does not, and I believe cannot, articulate the moral crisis of this country in terms of its principles, and apply those principles in the policy areas that confront us, with any effectiveness. He cannot do so; he has not done so. And I would challenge you and anybody else out there to show me one shred of evidence that this man has the capacity to do this.

I have that capacity, and have demonstrated it repeatedly. And I think it is the one that is required for the Republican Party right now. That is not a comment on George Bush personally. I like the man; he's hard not to like. But at the same time--liking and disliking, this is not a popularity contest, or at least it shouldn't be. It should be a contest in terms of what is going to produce the best result for this country. Who offers the most effective capacity to meet the challenge we face right now as a people? And I think that G. W. Bush is not that person.

Moderator: Caleb Chapman, 16 years old, Florida, e-mails this: "Mr. Keyes, we have a problem in this country in that many children think that this country was based entirely on the ideals of equality. Many students are misinformed and believe that equality is more important than liberty. What can be done to inform these ill-informed students of the moral superiority of liberty, and what would you do as president to convince people of liberty?"

Keyes: I think I would try to get folks to understand the terms liberty and equality in the right way, and therefore to understand their relationship to one another. The concept of equality is terribly important in America. Unlike some conservatives, I am not afraid of it. Why? Because I understand that equality did not mean material equality. It doesn't mean that we are all supposed to have the same car, and have all the same income, and all of this stuff the leftists believe--that wasn't the point.

The point was that you were to look at each and every individual with the eyes of the Creator. Now, of course, the Creator is absolute power, absolute majesty. In the eyes of the Creator, we are all equal. Because next to absolute power, our relative power is nothing. So in that sense, we all have a basic equality at a moral level, and have been endowed by our Creator with a kernel of moral dignity that has to be respected by every power, regardless of their money, regardless of any other criterion of HUMAN strength and inequality. That's the real meaning of equality.

But one element of that, the result of recognizing that equality, is what? That government must be based on consent, must respect the capacity of individuals to make moral choices; that is to say, must respect liberty.

So it is through a right understanding of equality that we come to appreciate the fact that liberty must be the basis for government. These two ideas are not in contradiction with each other. And I think we have done our children a great disservice, because we have had, unfortunately, politicians and leaders who don't understand this fundamental relationship of principle--who wouldn't be able to do what I just did: in one minute, articulate for you the fundamental truth about the relationship conceptually between equality and liberty in this nation's life.

That is what we need right now, not only as a guide for our children. Because don't fool yourself. The sixteen and fourteen and thirteen year olds are not the only people who need help here. We can see in just about every debate that occurs in America that folks far older than that also misunderstand these key concepts, and need to have, I think, some leadership that can articulate for folks what in a way, in our hearts, we all understand. Because I think what I just went through is not that hard to grasp. It just needs to be said in order to be respected.

That, by the way, is what our Founders meant by self-evident truths--truths that, once you have articulated them, the head nods and you say, "Yeah, that's right," and we move forward. And that is what I think needs to be done now in terms of leadership for our young and for the country as a whole.

Moderator: Next call comes from Lakesly, Pennsylvania, Democrats line.

Caller: Dr. Keyes, it's an honor to speak to you.

Keyes: It's my pleasure, thank you.

Caller: And C-SPAN, you do a great service for this country.

Moderator: Thank you sir, what's on your mind today?

Caller: Speaking about service to the country, Mr. Keyes, you know that during the sixties President Kennedy started a Peace Corps. It did a lot of good for other countries. The youth of this country doesn't seem to understand that there is a lot of third world problems in our country, people without running water, people without homes, housing. What would you think of mandatory service for our youth. When they come out of high school or college, they use their abilities go out into this country and see how the other people live. And wouldn't that bring us all together, as a nation?

Keyes: I agree with you. I think it would. And I have championed for a long time the view that instead of moving, as we did back during the Nixon era, into a voluntary kind of military service. I thought that was the wrong way around. I think that national service is an obligation of citizenship in a republic. It is government of the people, by the people, for the people. That means that folks can't be raised to believe that government exists as some kind of instrument that is just there to pander to their will--no! We are, in fact, the elements of government, in this country. Our sense of duty, discipline, responsibility, is what makes effective government possible at all levels. That is why it is SELF-government, as opposed to government by some totalitarian bureaucracy.

But with that concept in mind, we must think of ourselves as citizens in the true sense of the word. That is the root, by the way, of the word "politics," the Greek word for citizen. So politics is just about citizenship, and citizenship in the end is about understanding that each and every individual must offer and must participate in the national life so that they will help shape the destiny of the country.

How do we produce that kind of mentality? Through education. And I think part of that education ought to be universal national service. And I think that it would consist of having everybody, after they have finished high school, know that they were going to face two years--and regardless, by the way, of their status in other ways. Wealth wouldn't stand in the way. Nothing would stand in the way. And you would have to serve those two years. You would go through a first period of basic training, in which everybody would get the basic training that is given to people who are going into military life, and then I would offer people a range of options, including service in the various branches of the military, which would then be available to them to fulfill their two years of national service.

I think that that corresponds to the kind of republican, small "r," ideal that we ought to have in this country, and I think that moving away from it has been a bad mistake. You should not have professional forces defending you, or serving you, in your national life in a republic. Forces ought to be citizen forces, and that means you have to have citizens who are prepared to do the work, both morally and emotionally and spiritually, and in terms of their talent.

One other great advantage here--if you have a system like that, in which, regardless of money and class and background, people are thrown together to live for a couple of years a common life of service, I think that helps to overcome misunderstandings between races and classes, to give us all, as we are moving through life, a common reference point where we in fact learned about each other as we did our common service to the country. I strongly support that ideal, and I think that it ought to be established in this country.

And it would do a great service not just to our youth, but to those whom the youth become, the older citizens of the country. Because as you move forward in life, that kind of an experience will create a common reserve in this country of mutual understanding and respect, and also, by the way, a sense of obligation--a sense of obligation to go along with the sense of entitlement that I think has been altogether too much encouraged in this country in recent decades.

Moderator: Next call, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on our "other" line.

Caller: Mr. Keyes, pleasure to talk to you today. I'm really shocked, I was flipping the channels, happened to come across you. I have to say, I kind of wish I could ask this question to Governor Bush, because he is the Governor of Texas. I know I'm calling from Oklahoma, but I am a Texas resident. But I am glad also that I can ask you this, because I think I can get a straight answer from you.

It's a real controversial topic, the topic of homosexuality. In the state of Texas, in my understanding, it is against the law to practice homosexuality. Recently, I think it was Milice Atheridge (sp?) came on some news thing about her and her other lover having children and everything, and the news really gave them a favorable showing and such. My ex-wife is a homosexual, and when she divorced me--and of course she divorced me for other reasons, she did not come out of the closet until a year later--being a resident of Texas, where it is against the law, I'm not sure how to do anything about that, or if the Governor, who wants to be president, is even willing to do anything about it, if he can.

My ex-wife has threatened legal action against me if I ever speak against her, as she says it, whatever that means. Basically, when I teach my children what the Bible says, as opposed to what she says it says, she threatens legal action against me. So I live in fear at times because I have already lost my kids--I am a joint-custody, whatever that means in the state of Texas. What could the Governor do, or what could you do, if you were in that place, or how do you feel about that? And by the way, I would like to say a comment as a veteran, of four years of service, '91-'95. I can say that many people, including myself, do not like homosexuals in the military.

Keyes: I appreciate the call. Two things are true. First, I think that it is very important that we understand the real nature of the challenge of this whole homosexual agenda. Some people like to pretend that it is just about how you feel, morally and otherwise, about homosexuality. It is not. Very often when I get into exchanges with folks who are pushing the homosexual agenda they will take advantage of the fact that I am black, and they will look at me and say, "Well, this is just like what we did with race. And the military was racially desegregated. We have to do the same thing with respect to sexual matters."

There is one big problem with that. And that is, when you equate homosexuality with race, you are essentially telling me that sexual behavior is like race--and race, in case you haven't noticed, is beyond control of the individual. My skin is behaving like a black skin right now, but that is not because I am sitting here willing it to be black. That is something beyond my control, beyond my will.

The issue of prejudice was an issue about whether or not it is right to make moral judgments about people, and other judgments about people, based on a condition they cannot control, and behavior that they cannot control. And, of course, most of us, all of us, I think, who are rational, conclude that you cannot hold people responsible for what they can't control. That is unjust, it is unfair.

What happens if we put sexual matters in that category? So that we look at folks and we say, "Look, your sexual behavior is beyond your control. It's like race. And therefore, if I disapprove of it, I am doing something bigoted"? Well, it means that concepts like sexual responsibility, which are the basis for fidelity in marriage, concepts like maturity, which are the basis for maintaining our protection of children against sexual exploitation--they can't be sustained. Because after all, if adults have no more control over their choice and judgment in sexual matters than children, why would you prosecute them for having sex with children? It would just be the older children having sex with the younger children, then, because we are all children where sexual matters are concerned.

Is that true? I think it is obviously not. And I think it upsets, unbalances, and destroys the very foundation of almost all the ethical codes I've ever heard of, to say that human beings are not responsible for what they do as a consequence of their sexual passions and inclinations. Of course the are. And of course we must hold them accountable. And if we must hold them accountable, then it is right, necessary and proper to have moral codes that distinguish between one kind of sexual activity and another, based on the sense of which is, in fact, in conformity with right standards of conduct in human affairs.

So the notion that you could put homosexuality some category and say opposition to the homosexual agenda is just prejudiced, and all of that--you destroy freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of moral judgment. Indeed, you destroy the whole concept of moral judgment when you do so.

And that, by the way, doesn't just apply to homosexuality--because after all, if I can't control my sexual passions, why is sexual passion going to be treated differently than other passions that are, in effect, encoded in our biological nature? We have inclinations to anger, inclinations to cowardice, inclinations to jealousy and resentment that all of the folks have, that now are said part of our genetic and biological make-up. Does that mean that when it comes to all these areas, we are no longer to be held accountable for what we do?

That would destroy, by the way, the very idea of freedom itself. The whole concept of freedom is based on the notion that human beings do, in fact, have a capacity for moral choice for which they can be held accountable and responsible. If we are going to turn away from that, and see ourselves as a function of our national passions, helpless in the face of all of these whims of passionate desire that blow us hither and thither, than we are little better, in fact, than animals in a maze. And the best you could hope for is to structure society in such a way that we don't harm each other and ourselves too much. That's called totalitarianism--and that is exactly what is implied if we accept the key premise of the homosexual agenda.

I will not do so, cannot do so, because I think it is incompatible with both civilization and moral dignity to deny that human beings have the capacity to make moral choice in these critical areas. And that is why I take the position I do on these matters where people are trying to pretend that there is some civil rights component here. It is entirely misplaced. And in fact by moving down that road they destroy the meaning of the First Amendment, free exercise of religion, the right of people, in fact, the obligation of people, to make responsible moral choices and judgments, to act on those judgments, to have opinions that reflect and enforce those judgments in their communities. That's step number one.

One final point, though, about sodomy laws. I have a serious problem with them. I do. Because I have a serious problem with any laws that can't be enforced without destroying privacy. And I don't see how sodomy laws can be enforced without destroying privacy. What is going on in private between consenting adults--even if I believe it is deeply immoral--if it does not have consequences that affect the public weal, then I don't think should be in the business of going in and interrupting people's privacy to enforce laws against what they do.

When it spills over into the public--whether it is health consequences, behavioral consequences, behavior in public places, establishments that must be regulated for reasons of public decency and so forth--then I think that we have not only the right, but the obligation to have laws that regulate behavior to respect those public standards. When homosexuals come forward and they demand marriage, and all of this, then we have an obligation to defend institutions that are vital to the maintenance of our common life and civilization.

But when it comes to simply private matters and behavior, I think it is too dangerous to privacy to hand to the government some license that would then require, what? That we have surveillance in all our bedrooms to make sure that we are not doing anything contrary to the law? No. I think that all such laws should be removed from the books. I don't think they are enforceable without great danger to our liberty.

But I also believe that laws that protect the public decency, and the public weal, and maintain the public standards of behavior in sexual matters--those laws must be defended and enforced. And we should not give way to the assault being mounted against them.

Moderator: Last question, about a minute and a half left. New Smyrna Beach, Florida. Republican line.

Caller: Yes, Mr. Keyes, I just want to say that I am a young black minister, in New Smyrna Beach, and you are one of the most inspiring speakers I have ever heard. It is always an encouragement and a great blessing to hear you speak. I want you to know, as a 31-year old young man, what should the church do to become more involved. I think that . . . you made a statement earlier, that there is such a bad view when it comes to people looking at the presidency, it looks like it is just run by the money moguls, you say. But how can the church become more involved, because I think that you need to definitely be promoted. And I hope that we can see you definitely more on television, because you are definitely a voice for the 21st century.

Keyes: God bless you. I think that the issue you've raised is critical. I believe that the responsibility that falls particularly on the churches, on the institutions of faith, is enormous. It is a responsibility to come to the rescue of our nation's conscience by standing as citizens for those moral principles of our nation's life that are consistent with our faith, and that are required to maintain the integrity of our institutions of self-government. That is step number one.

We have a vocation as citizens--a God-given vocation, by the way, because by His providence we are here as citizens of America. He made that judgment; it is part of his plan. And I think we need to step up to the plate and do our business with the same effective conscience that we do in other areas. We don't leave our faith behind when we are doing other things. And we shouldn't leave it behind when we are acting as citizens.

I think we have a special responsibility in the area of mutual welfare, in our society. If the churches were, in fact, playing their proper role, and if we structured things so that they could have proper access to the money in this society needed to support that role, you wouldn't need government welfare programs, because the churches would effectively be the welfare agencies of America. And that is the way it ought to be.

So I think that in both a practical way and in terms of our moral and spiritual life, we need to challenge the churches and institutions of faith, the synagogues and other institutions, "Step up to the plate! Because government can't fulfill your role. Government can't step in and in fact deal with people as moral beings, because when it tries to do so it is either heavy-handed, or indifferent to the moral consequences. It doesn't work that way. And so I will be challenging the faith sector and the moral sector to step up to the plate to do its job. And I will also be working to make sure that we shift control of resources back into hands that can effectively provide the faith and moral sector with the means to support its work.

Moderator: Thank you for being here.

Keyes: Thank you.



Part 2:

Moderator: Auburndale, Florida, Republican line. Good morning, caller.

Caller: Good morning. I am a 66 year old white woman, life-long Republican, and I want you to know that you are the only candidate that we would even consider voting for in the Florida Primary. I just have a couple of documents here from 1952 and 1963, that showed in Florida that the Bible was required reading in public schools--not to teach doctrine, but to recognize our Creator and His instructions on how we should live. Can you tell me when the Constitution was changed?

Keyes: It wasn't changed. It hasn't changed. What happened was that a lot of liberal judges started their pronouncements and essentially have disregarded both our heritage, our history, and the actual words of the Constitution. The other day I got a question at one of the debates from one of the reporters, saying, "Well, what will you tell us about how you' ll respect separation of church and state?" And she put it to me as if there was some Constitutional requirement that the President should respect separation of church and state.

Guess what? There's no mention of separation of church and state in the Constitution. In fact, the First Amendment was written, clearly, in order to do what? In order to keep the federal government from being able to impose any kind of uniform religious code or belief on the states and localities and people of this country. That is exactly what the federal judges have been doing. For the last several decades, they have been trying to impose a uniform regime which pushes God out of every area of our public life--out of the schools, out of the towns, and so forth.

What they are doing violates the letter and spirit of that First Amendment to the Constitution, which was intended to prevent federal coercion in religious matters from interfering with the ability of people in their states and communities to make the kind of choices that reflected, and carried into action, their religious beliefs. That's why the clause in the Constitution, by the way, it doesn't guarantee freedom of conscience only. It says the "free exercise." Remember what exercise is? Exercise isn't what you do when you are sitting in the chair thinking about running; it is what you do when you run, carrying into action what would otherwise simply be a thought in your mind.

So that free exercise clause means that in our workplace, and in our lives, and in our schools, and in the things we are doing, we have the Constitutional right to act in such a way as reflects our religious beliefs. And this is exactly what the courts have been taking away.

I will make it, and have made it, one of the keys of my campaign to present to people the truth about this issue, to try to wake up people of conscience so they will cease to be intimidated by the fiction that has been invented by these liberal judges, so that we can get back to a Constitution in which free exercise really means something.

Moderator: A caller in Michigan is on our third party line. Good morning.

Caller: Yes, what an honor to speak to you, Dr. Keyes.

Keyes: Thank you.

Caller: I would like to ask you a question about your interest in abolishing the income tax amendment, and establishing a consumption tax? My question is, if you are going to do something like that, it is my understanding that you have to get 100 senators and 435 representatives, and the states, to ratify any changes. So how would you realistically try to get in a consumption tax?

Keyes: Let me clarify something. The term "consumption tax" is a little broad for me, because it would include things like they have in Europe. Under the rubric of consumption tax, they have the VAT, the value added tax, that actually turns out to be a tax on production and productivity. And I do not support that approach, because I think you don't want to burden production. You don't want to burden that process which is actually producing the wealth and expanding the horizons of opportunity for your people.

What I propose is an excise tax--that's a tax on the retail sales of products in the marketplace, so that you impose it, to the best of your ability, only once in that process--not multiple taxation at all these different stages, but only once--and it is done in a transparent fashion, so that if the tax is set too high, people will know what is causing the problem, and how to remedy it, and who to go to to remedy it.

Second, in terms of implementing this idea: remember, what we need is to have a 2/3 majority, not all 100 senators, even though that 2/3 is a high threshold. But sometimes when we think about this, I believe, we need to be more dynamic in our thinking. If I succeed at what I am doing right now, rallying the forces of real and fundamental reform in this area in the Republican Party, then rallying those forces through winning the general election, we will rewrite the landscape of American politics. We will create a situation in which a clear governing majority exists in support of these views, and the Congress will then, in my opinion, fall in line or they will see themselves suffer at the midterm elections, you and I both know it.

So I will move quickly in those first two years to put this agenda on the table, and on the strength of the new coalition that we have created, I will move forward. That is the advantage, by the way, of being clear in your articulation of the issues. So that when I get elected, folks will know this agenda was just ratified by the American people, and we are going to move forward with it.

In case you have noticed, in the last several years, Reagan did it, to a certain extent in 1994 the Republicans did it in Congress--when you are clear and forthright in your stands on the issues, so that when you get elected people know exactly what it is that they voted into office, it is much easier then to move forward and implement what you have offered to the American people, because all the people in the political arena realize that your victory was a victory for those agenda items. And that is why I think it is a great asset to be somebody who is not just trying to tell people what they want to hear, but is clear on the issues, presents them forthrightly. If then they are chosen by the American people, we will know exactly what direction we should head in.

Moderator: Martha Borfin or Roanoke e-mails this Question: "I'm interested in the fervor that drives one to seek the presidency. Throughout history, there have been individuals, including most of the Founding Fathers, military figures, private sector and public servants, who have made enormous contributions to the direction of our nation. Martin Luther King comes to mind as one who will be revered far longer than any president of his time for changing the social conscience of the U.S.

"What inspires one to seek the ultimate visible role as president, when most of the work and long term persuasion of the nation occurs in small steps, behind the scenes?"

Keyes: I think you are right in your analysis of how the work is done. But I think that we come to critical times in our nation's history when things come to a crisis. And when, during that crisis, a clear articulation is needed--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, we have usually had folks in American life who rise to the occasion, and come forward to help articulate, on a national level, that kind of sense of principle and understanding that is needed to deal with the crisis. We did so during our great wars. We did so during the Civil War period, and so forth.

I think we have come to a moral crisis that requires precisely that kind of articulation, where over a range of issues--from what is happening with our families, what is happening in terms of our concepts of sexual responsibility, what's happening to our children in the womb, what's happening to our control of ourselves, of our money, of our schools--we are reaching a crisis of self-government.

That crisis cannot just be dealt with piecemeal, because very often when you concentrate on the pieces, people miss the overall picture, in which we are sacrificing our principles and destroying our character.

So I think we have reached a moment in which that kind of articulation is needed, so that the American people can understand the real nature of the crisis, respond to it in terms of our allegiance to our basic principles, and then apply that in each area of policy, to get back to a road that is consistent with self-government.

And I think that that does require participation. Because very often, if you see something like this, you move forward in other arenas, people will look at you and say, "Well, yeah, that's all well and good. But you are not out here. You don't have to convince these voters. You don't have to do this, or that. Therefore, we can't move ahead with what needs to be done."

I think there are times when you just have to stand in the arena and demonstrate that all those are pretty poor, sorry excuses, from people who simply don't have the capacity to articulate what is needed for the American people. And if you can stand in the arena and do it better than they can--and I have thus far done so, widely acknowledged to have done so--that proves that their excuses should not be accepted, that in point of fact we do have the ability to understand, to move the heart of the American people, and to move forward in a direction that restores our sense of principle and our basis for self-government.

I think we are at such a time of crisis, and at this time running for the presidency--if you do have an ability to articulate things in that way--may be the most effective thing that you can do. At least, that's how it has appeared to me in the course of the last several years. And it is why I am doing what I am doing.

Moderator: Next, Aida, Oklahoma, Republican line.

Caller: Mr. Keyes, I would like to make some statements, and then I have some questions. But before you answer me, I would like to give you all the points that I would like to make.

Moderator: Okay, caller, before you start, please recognize we have lots of callers, so the time has to be short.

Caller: Okay. I would like to say that I do admire your stand on abortion. I would like to point out to you that there is a larger percentage of white people who would support you than blacks, because you do expect people to do things for themselves. Just as they do not like Justice Thomas, they do not support you.

Now, I would like to make this statement. I do not think that you are any more moral than George Bush. He is a very deeply spiritual person--I'm not saying religious, I'm saying spiritual. He has tried to point out to you people--I think all of you are pro-life. His running mate would support all of his conservative principles. He is pro-life. The Bush family has adopted children. They also are very involved in supporting adoption, working for a maternity home, and raising funds.

And I am beginning to resent, in some way, your attitude and also that of Gary Bauer. I admire Gary Bauer, but he also has this attitude that he is the only pro-life person . . .

Moderator: Mr. Keyes, why don't you pick it up from there.

Keyes: Let me respond first of all, I think you entirely misunderstand the nature of the moral challenge. Colin Powell is a very moral man, a very spiritual man, a man who has done many things that I would admire, in terms of his own moral character and probity. I would not support him for president. And if he were put on a ticket, I would leave the Republican Party.

Why? Because he does not take the stand that is required from a moral point of view for the American people. The issue at stake here is not my morality versus George Bush's morality at some personal level. That is not the issue. It was not, by the way, the issue either when we confronted the Clinton problem, as I repeatedly said when others were misunderstanding it.

The challenge we face right now is our challenge as a people to renew our allegiance to our principles, and to get away from those policies which 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. As I said to the previous caller who was a Democrat, that has nothing to do with self-righteousness, or anything else. It is just a matter of simple necessity for this country to be true to its principles, or we lose everything we have. That's step number one.

Step number two. The question therefore is who can most effectively represent and articulate that moral perspective for the American people, right now in a time of crisis, when the election in fact will hinge, for the Republicans, on our ability to present that moral crisis effectively and make it the key issue of this campaign. If voters go into the voting booth and decide on the strength of the economy, Democrats will win--I hope you realize that--because we've got a booming economy. If they decide on whether the world is at war or at peace, and so forth and so on, Democrats will win, because the world is at peace. But if they decide on the basis of the moral crisis, and what party in fact has been contributing to the moral destruction of this country by leading us away from our principles, that's the only chance Republicans have of victory.

So when I say something about G. W. Bush, it is not a comment about him personally, or about his morality, or anything else. I'll tell you right in front, though--he does not, and I believe cannot, articulate the moral crisis of this country in terms of its principles, and apply those principles in the policy areas that confront us, with any effectiveness. He cannot do so; he has not done so. And I would challenge you and anybody else out there to show me one shred of evidence that this man has the capacity to do this.

I have that capacity, and have demonstrated it repeatedly. And I think it is the one that is required for the Republican Party right now. That is not a comment on George Bush personally. I like the man; he's hard not to like. But at the same time--liking and disliking, this is not a popularity contest, or at least it shouldn't be. It should be a contest in terms of what is going to produce the best result for this country. Who offers the most effective capacity to meet the challenge we face right now as a people? And I think that G. W. Bush is not that person.



part 3(conclusion)

Moderator: Caleb Chapman, 16 years old, Florida, e-mails this: "Mr. Keyes, we have a problem in this country in that many children think that this country was based entirely on the ideals of equality. Many students are misinformed and believe that equality is more important than liberty. What can be done to inform these ill-informed students of the moral superiority of liberty, and what would you do as president to convince people of liberty?"

Keyes: I think I would try to get folks to understand the terms liberty and equality in the right way, and therefore to understand their relationship to one another. The concept of equality is terribly important in America. Unlike some conservatives, I am not afraid of it. Why? Because I understand that equality did not mean material equality. It doesn't mean that we are all supposed to have the same car, and have all the same income, and all of this stuff the leftists believe--that wasn't the point.

The point was that you were to look at each and every individual with the eyes of the Creator. Now, of course, the Creator is absolute power, absolute majesty. In the eyes of the Creator, we are all equal. Because next to absolute power, our relative power is nothing. So in that sense, we all have a basic equality at a moral level, and have been endowed by our Creator with a kernel of moral dignity that has to be respected by every power, regardless of their money, regardless of any other criterion of HUMAN strength and inequality. That's the real meaning of equality.

But one element of that, the result of recognizing that equality, is what? That government must be based on consent, must respect the capacity of individuals to make moral choices; that is to say, must respect liberty.

So it is through a right understanding of equality that we come to appreciate the fact that liberty must be the basis for government. These two ideas are not in contradiction with each other. And I think we have done our children a great disservice, because we have had, unfortunately, politicians and leaders who don't understand this fundamental relationship of principle--who wouldn't be able to do what I just did: in one minute, articulate for you the fundamental truth about the relationship conceptually between equality and liberty in this nation's life.

That is what we need right now, not only as a guide for our children. Because don't fool yourself. The sixteen and fourteen and thirteen year olds are not the only people who need help here. We can see in just about every debate that occurs in America that folks far older than that also misunderstand these key concepts, and need to have, I think, some leadership that can articulate for folks what in a way, in our hearts, we all understand. Because I think what I just went through is not that hard to grasp. It just needs to be said in order to be respected.

That, by the way, is what our Founders meant by self-evident truths--truths that, once you have articulated them, the head nods and you say, "Yeah, that's right," and we move forward. And that is what I think needs to be done now in terms of leadership for our young and for the country as a whole.

Moderator: Next call comes from Lakesly, Pennsylvania, Democrats line.

Caller: Dr. Keyes, it's an honor to speak to you.

Keyes: It's my pleasure, thank you.

Caller: And C-SPAN, you do a great service for this country.

Moderator: Thank you sir, what's on your mind today?

Caller: Speaking about service to the country, Mr. Keyes, you know that during the sixties President Kennedy started a Peace Corps. It did a lot of good for other countries. The youth of this country doesn't seem to understand that there is a lot of third world problems in our country, people without running water, people without homes, housing. What would you think of mandatory service for our youth. When they come out of high school or college, they use their abilities go out into this country and see how the other people live. And wouldn't that bring us all together, as a nation?

Keyes: I agree with you. I think it would. And I have championed for a long time the view that instead of moving, as we did back during the Nixon era, into a voluntary kind of military service. I thought that was the wrong way around. I think that national service is an obligation of citizenship in a republic. It is government of the people, by the people, for the people. That means that folks can't be raised to believe that government exists as some kind of instrument that is just there to pander to their will--no! We are, in fact, the elements of government, in this country. Our sense of duty, discipline, responsibility, is what makes effective government possible at all levels. That is why it is SELF-government, as opposed to government by some totalitarian bureaucracy.

But with that concept in mind, we must think of ourselves as citizens in the true sense of the word. That is the root, by the way, of the word "politics," the Greek word for citizen. So politics is just about citizenship, and citizenship in the end is about understanding that each and every individual must offer and must participate in the national life so that they will help shape the destiny of the country.

How do we produce that kind of mentality? Through education. And I think part of that education ought to be universal national service. And I think that it would consist of having everybody, after they have finished high school, know that they were going to face two years--and regardless, by the way, of their status in other ways. Wealth wouldn't stand in the way. Nothing would stand in the way. And you would have to serve those two years. You would go through a first period of basic training, in which everybody would get the basic training that is given to people who are going into military life, and then I would offer people a range of options, including service in the various branches of the military, which would then be available to them to fulfill their two years of national service.

I think that that corresponds to the kind of republican, small "r," ideal that we ought to have in this country, and I think that moving away from it has been a bad mistake. You should not have professional forces defending you, or serving you, in your national life in a republic. Forces ought to be citizen forces, and that means you have to have citizens who are prepared to do the work, both morally and emotionally and spiritually, and in terms of their talent.

One other great advantage here--if you have a system like that, in which, regardless of money and class and background, people are thrown together to live for a couple of years a common life of service, I think that helps to overcome misunderstandings between races and classes, to give us all, as we are moving through life, a common reference point where we in fact learned about each other as we did our common service to the country. I strongly support that ideal, and I think that it ought to be established in this country.

And it would do a great service not just to our youth, but to those whom the youth become, the older citizens of the country. Because as you move forward in life, that kind of an experience will create a common reserve in this country of mutual understanding and respect, and also, by the way, a sense of obligation--a sense of obligation to go along with the sense of entitlement that I think has been altogether too much encouraged in this country in recent decades.

Moderator: Next call, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, on our "other" line.

Caller: Mr. Keyes, pleasure to talk to you today. I'm really shocked, I was flipping the channels, happened to come across you. I have to say, I kind of wish I could ask this question to Governor Bush, because he is the Governor of Texas. I know I'm calling from Oklahoma, but I am a Texas resident. But I am glad also that I can ask you this, because I think I can get a straight answer from you.

It's a real controversial topic, the topic of homosexuality. In the state of Texas, in my understanding, it is against the law to practice homosexuality. Recently, I think it was Milice Atheridge (sp?) came on some news thing about her and her other lover having children and everything, and the news really gave them a favorable showing and such. My ex-wife is a homosexual, and when she divorced me--and of course she divorced me for other reasons, she did not come out of the closet until a year later--being a resident of Texas, where it is against the law, I'm not sure how to do anything about that, or if the Governor, who wants to be president, is even willing to do anything about it, if he can.

My ex-wife has threatened legal action against me if I ever speak against her, as she says it, whatever that means. Basically, when I teach my children what the Bible says, as opposed to what she says it says, she threatens legal action against me. So I live in fear at times because I have already lost my kids--I am a joint-custody, whatever that means in the state of Texas. What could the Governor do, or what could you do, if you were in that place, or how do you feel about that. And by the way, I would like to say a comment as a veteran, of four years of service, 91-95. I can say that many people, including myself, do not like homosexuals in the military.

Keyes: I appreciate the call. Two things are true. First, I think that it is very important that we understand the real nature of the challenge of this whole homosexual agenda. Some people like to pretend that it is just about how you feel, morally and otherwise, about homosexuality. It is not. Very often when I get into exchanges with folks who are pushing the homosexual agenda they will take advantage of the fact that I am black, and they will look at me and say, "Well, this is just like what we did with race. And the military was racially desegregated. We have to do the same thing with respect to sexual matters."

There is one big problem with that. And that is, when you equate homosexuality with race, you are essentially telling me that sexual behavior is like race--and race, in case you haven't noticed, is beyond control of the individual. My skin is behaving like a black skin right now, but that is not because I am sitting here willing it to be black. That is something beyond my control, beyond my will.

The issue of prejudice was an issue about whether or not it is right to make moral judgments about people, and other judgments about people, based on a condition they cannot control, and behavior that they cannot control. And, of course, most of us, all of us, I think, who are rational, conclude that you cannot hold people responsible for what they can't control. That is unjust, it is unfair.

What happens if we put sexual matters in that category? So that we look at folks and we say, "Look, your sexual behavior is beyond your control; it's like race; and therefore, if I disapprove of it, I am doing something bigoted."? Well, it means that concepts like sexual responsibility, which are the basis for fidelity in marriage, concepts like maturity, which are the basis for maintaining our protection of children against sexual exploitation--they can't be sustained. Because after all, if adults have no more control over their choice and judgment in sexual matters than children, why would you prosecute them for having sex with children? It would just be the older children having sex with the younger children, then, because we are all children where sexual matters are concerned.

Is that true? I think it is obviously not. And I think it upsets, unbalances and destroys the very foundation of almost all the ethical codes I've ever heard of, to say that human beings are not responsible for what they do as a consequence of their sexual passions and inclinations. Of course the are. And of course we must hold them accountable. And if we must hold them accountable, then it is right, necessary and proper to have moral codes that distinguish between one kind of sexual activity and another, based on the sense of which is, in fact, in conformity with right standards of conduct in human affairs.

So the notion that you could put homosexuality some category and say (opposition to the homosexual agenda) is just prejudiced, and all of that--you destroy freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of moral judgment. Indeed, you destroy the whole concept of moral judgment when you do so.

And that, by the way, doesn't just apply to homosexuality, because after all, if I can't control my sexual passions, why is sexual passion going to be treated differently than other passions that are, in effect, encoded in our biological nature? We have inclinations to anger, inclinations to cowardice, inclinations to jealousy and resentment, that all of the folks have now said are part of our genetic and biological make-up. Does that mean that when it comes to all these areas, we are no longer to be held accountable for what we do.

That would destroy, by the way, the very idea of freedom itself. The whole concept of freedom is based on the notion that human beings do, in fact, have a capacity for moral choice for which they can be held accountable and responsible. If we are going to turn away from that, and see ourselves as a function of our national passions, helpless in the face of all of these whims of passionate desire that blow us hither and thither, than we are little better, in fact, than animals in a maze. And the best you could hope for is to structure society in such a way that we don't harm each other and ourselves too much. That's called totalitarianism--and that is exactly what is implied if we accept the key premise of the homosexual agenda.

I will not do so, cannot do so, because I think it is incompatible with both civilization and moral dignity to deny that human beings have the capacity to make moral choice in these critical areas. And that is why I take the position I do on these matters where people are trying to pretend that there is some civil rights component here. It is entirely misplaced. And in fact by moving down that road they destroy the meaning of the First Amendment, free exercise of religion, the right of people, in fact, the obligation of people, to make responsible moral choices and judgments, to act on those judgments, to have opinions that reflect and enforce those judgments in their communities. That's step number one.

One final point, though, about sodomy laws. I have a serious problem with them. I do. Because I have a serious problem with any laws that can 't be enforced without destroying privacy. And I don't see how sodomy laws can be enforced without destroying privacy. What is going on in private between consenting adults--even if I believe it is deeply immoral--if it does not have consequences that affect the public weal, then I don't think should be in the business of going in and interrupting people's privacy to enforce laws against what they do.

When it spills over into the public--whether it is health consequences, behavioral consequences, behavior in public places, establishments that must be regulated for reasons of public decency and so forth--then I think that we have not only the right, but the obligation to have laws that regulate behavior to respect those public standards. When homosexuals come forward and they demand marriage, and all of this, then we have an obligation to defend institutions that are vital to the maintenance of our common life and civilization.

But when it comes to simply private matters and behavior, I think it is too dangerous to privacy to hand to the government some license that would then require what? That we have surveillance in all our bedrooms to make sure that we are not doing anything contrary to the law? No. I think that all such laws should be removed from the books. I don't think they are enforceable without great danger to our liberty.

But I also believe that laws that protect the public decency, and the public weal, and maintain the public standards of behavior in sexual matters--those laws must be defended and enforced. And we should not give way to the assault being mounted against them.

Moderator: Last question, about a minute and a half left. New Smyrna Beach, Florida. Republican line.

Caller: Yes, Mr. Keyes, I just want to say that I am a young black minister, in New Smyrna Beach, and you are one of the most inspiring speakers I have ever heard. It is always an encouragement and a great blessing to hear you speak. I want you to know, as a 31-year old young man, what should the church do to become more involved. I think that . . . you made a statement earlier, that there is such a bad view when it comes to people looking at the presidency, it looks like it is just run by the money moguls, you say. But how can the church become more involved, because I think that you need to definitely be promoted. And I hope that we can see you definitely more on television, because you are definitely a voice for the 21st century.

Keyes: God bless you. I think that the issue you've raised is critical. I believe that the responsibility that falls particularly on the churches, on the institutions of faith, is enormous. It is a responsibility to come to the rescue of our nation's conscience by standing as citizens for those moral principles of our nation's life that are consistent with our faith, and that are required to maintain the integrity of our institutions of self-government. That is step number one.

We have a vocation as citizens--a God-given vocation, by the way, because by His providence we are here as citizens of America. He made that judgment; it is part of his plan. And I think we need to step up to the plate and do our business with the same effective conscience that we do in other areas. We don't leave our faith behind when we are doing other things. And we shouldn't leave it behind when we are acting as citizens.

I think we have a special responsibility in the area of mutual welfare, in our society. If the churches were, in fact, playing their proper role, and if we structured things so that they could have proper access to the money in this society needed to support that role, you wouldn't need government welfare programs, because the churches would effectively be the welfare agencies of America. And that is the way it ought to be.

So I think that in both a practical way and in terms of our moral and spiritual life, we need to challenge the churches and institutions of faith, the synagogues and other institutions, "Step up to the plate! Because government can't fulfill your role. Government can't step in and in fact deal with people as moral beings, because when it tries to do so it is either heavy-handed, or indifferent to the moral consequences. It doesn't work that way. And so I will be challenging the faith sector and the moral sector to step up to the plate to do its job. And I will also be working to make sure that we shift control of resources back into hands that can effectively provide the faith and moral sector with the means to support its work.

Moderator: Thank you for being here.

Keyes: Thank you.