MP3 audio

Alan Keyes
February 19, 2004

The following are remarks by Dr. Alan Keyes at a press conference for Open Debates, an organization that lobbies "to make the presidential debates serve the American people first." On February 19, 2004, Open Debates filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) against the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). The complaint alleges that presidential debates sponsored by the CPD are controlled by the major parties in violation of FEC debate regulations.

I feel compelled, first of all, to say a word or two about why I'm here today. It is known, I hope, well known to people, that I am a Republican, and I am a conservative, and I am a strong pro-life person who believes in the right to life. All these things are true, but that's not why I'm here today, any of it.

What I think we sometimes forget in the midst of all of this labeling, and dividing, and other kind of politics is that first and foremost I would hope we are all of us still Americans, and that we believe in the American way of life.

The distinguishing feature of the American way of life is a way of approaching government--described quite succinctly and, I think, accurately by Abraham Lincoln as "government of the people, by the people, for the people." If we examine the fundamental institution that makes it possible for that self-government by the people to take place, it is, of course, a process of representation based upon elections.

If the elections are not accurate, if the are not, in fact, true choices, if they are manipulated, if they are distorted, if they are dominated by factors extraneous to the choice of the people, then "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" has been destroyed. It is a sham, and the people have been deprived of that constitutional system of self-government that is the distinguishing birthright of Americans.

That means that this the question of whether elections are for real, and whether the choices presented to people when they go into the voting booth are in fact a real reflection of the choices available--that's not a secondary question. And it's not just a question about what issues are being discussed, and whether things we like or dislike are being put on the table. It goes to the fundamental question of whether the system of government and way of life that we are supposed to have exists or does not exist.

The simple fact of the matter is that on a number of criteria these days, media domination of perceptions about candidates, manipulation of debates by the dominant major parties, and so forth and so on, I think any objective observer in the American electoral process today would conclude that, in point of fact, we already live in an era where, through a combination of these factors, there is no true election in America anymore.

That fundamental prerequisite of the success of our constitutional system has been profoundly subverted, in order to serve the interests of powers who wish to hold on to power regardless of what the American people may or may not think.

One consequence of this manipulation of the system is that more and more Americans--who are, by the way, not as stupid as people often make out. Americans are not stupid enough to go on participating in a rigged game, and once they realize it is rigged, they leave the gaming house.

Well, I think a lot of Americans have concluded that the electoral process is a rigged game, it's a manipulated outcome, and they don't wish to be party to a sham.

And so, when folks go around lamenting [the lack of] participation as if it's only a result of the laziness, passivity, indifference, and defective moral character of the American people, that's a lie. The truth is, I think it's a result of the perceptiveness of the American people--that they have watched over the course of the last 20-odd years, and they have seen an electoral process that has more and more at every level become a manipulated sham, and they no longer wish to be taken for fools.

One of the elements of this sad manipulation is the way in which debates are approached. Why is this important, by the way? Well, it's important because, contrary the impression the media wants to give sometimes, elections in this country aren't, in fact, like horse races--and they shouldn't be.

What is the difference between what a bettor does at the track and what a voter is supposed to do in the voting booth?

Well, a bettor goes to the track, they're trying to pick the winner. You could say, "Well, they're both trying to pick the winner." Yeah, but the problem is that the bettor at the track may pick the winner, but that bettor, those bets, do not determine the winner. The winner is determined by the horse, the winner is determined by the jockey, the winner is determined by the trainers, the winner is determined by a whole range of factors that have nothing to do with the choice of the bettors.

In an election, the person in that voting booth isn't just to pick the winner, they are supposed to determine the winner--and in order to determine the winner, they must be the factor that, above all, makes a difference in who wins and who loses.

It's one of the things that has always bothered me in every stage of elections, when folks will be standing there and they'll be talking about somebody, and they'll be saying, you know, "This person's not the winner, that person's not the winner, the other person's not the winner. They can't win, they can't do this and that."

Who's determined this? If sometime before the voters have actually spoken we know who the winner is going to be, then I hate to tell you this, it means the voters didn't determine the winner. Somebody else must have done it, because they haven't acted yet! And since they haven't acted yet, how do we know? Well, the truth of the matter is, we don't. The truth of the matter is that that statement is manipulating a perception in order to manipulate the outcome, and to create a perception that, in fact, turns voters from choosers into bettors wanting to be on the side of the winner instead of the winning side.

Because, you see, the winning side is the side that determines the outcome--and, sadly, in American politics today, I think the winning side turns out to be folks who never enter the voting booth, turns out to be interests that don't even get to cast a vote, except that they have put themselves in a position of power in the system, through their money, through their manipulation, through their power, in order to determine an outcome which is then registered after the fact by a manipulated electoral process.

Now, what is one of the most effective ways to manipulate that electoral process? Well, taken to an extreme, we saw it in the old Soviet Union. The most effective way to manipulate the process is to limit the choices.

Now, we all recognized, didn't we, that in the one-party system of the old Soviet Union, choice was a sham. Somewhere behind the scenes somebody selected candidates, and even though 99% of the voters went to the polls, their presence there didn't mean a thing because their choices had been so delimited that, in point of fact, their choice was no real choice at all.

The principle of that, by the way, which is that you have limited the range of choice, that's what we ought to focus on here--because whether it's a one-party system or a two-party system, if somebody other than the voters has delimited the range of choice, that means the voters aren't making the choice; somebody else has already prefabricated it before they get to the polls.

That's why this issue, in my opinion, of open debates is so critical. It's not critical because it's going to help or hurt Republicans, Democrats, third-parties, and whatever. I am a Republican. I will continue to be a Republican. I don't particularly want to see the success of third- and forth- and fifth-parties, but I do want to see the success of freedom in America! And freedom can't possibly be successful if the people of this country have been deprived of their choice through prefabricated manipulation of the range of those choices.

That, of course, goes to the issue of issue-exclusion, it goes to the issue of candidate-exclusion, but it's clearly the case that those things aren't the only issue--because, at the end of the day, I am less concerned about what is going to help or hurt this party or this candidate than I am concerned about what helps or hurts the American people to be what they are supposed to be: the masters in this political house, not the subjects!

And I think that's the point we have reached right now with the two major parties.

Now, I say this with a certain amount of personal conviction--to put all of my background on the table--because, after all is said and done, in 1996, I went through, in the Republican primary situation, the process of exclusion. And not just exclusion on paper, either, not just being left out here and there. I went through a process where I had been invited to participate in one of the primary debates, and when I showed up to do so, I was taken away in handcuffs like I was some kind of a criminal.

We have got to understand that the image of that, candidates who are being forcibly kept out of the process--whether it's by those direct means, or by shrewder and more indirect means--that image is the image of democracy subverted, perverted, destroyed so that it is meaningless. For, the only way in which the people can make a true choice is if they are presented with the true choices.

And I also think that there's a direct relationship between the participation of the people and the range of those choices. Because, when all is said and done, all the tendencies we have in our politics for (in the general elections in particular) candidates to, as they say in the media, "run toward the middle"--well, it turns out that the middle is empty, and that the only people they will find in the middle on many things are themselves.

So, that perception that you run toward the middle means you have run away from every conviction, run away from every profoundly important choice, acted as if there is some way in point of fact to finesse every issue, when, in the actual business of government, that turns out to be a lie.

What it means is that you have manipulated the electorate to allow you to sit in a seat of power without ever truly revealing to that electorate what you mean to do with that power.

To remind folks of an old Machiavellian nostrum, Machiavelli was wont to say, I think in The Prince somewhere, that if you're going to kill someone and they're armed, when you're negotiating with them you don't say, "Give me your gun, I want to kill you," you just say, "Give me your gun."

And that's what's happening in the American electoral process. Politicians are allowed to stand up and they're allowed to say, "Give me the power." We have manipulated the system, including these debates, that allows them to say that without ever telling us, in fact, what they mean to do with that power, in any honest or sincere way. Platitudes and empty rhetoric are substituted for a sincere expression of their digested and thought-through beliefs about what needs to be done.

In this respect, there's one thing I would say in other disagreement--because I'm like Paul [Weyrich]; I disagree a lot with the folks who are sitting here from the so-called Left and Greenpeace and so forth. And there was one element of broad disagreement, though, with one thing that was said, and that is that somehow or another we are all up here and we come from profoundly different points of view, and et cetera. Yes and no, see? Because, I know what I share with certain people on the Left--Ralph Nader, for instance, and others--is a sincere belief that politics is about doing what's right for this country. We may profoundly disagree about what that is, but somewhere in our hearts, true patriotism, the true commitment to the American way of life, the true commitment to what we are supposed to offer human kind as a whole, requires that we be committed to this: that above partisanship and above ideology and above policy comes the commitment to sincerely look for what is right, and to do it when we can, no matter what.

And it seems to me that when we allow our politics to be so manipulated that that commitment to what is right for the country becomes merely an empty sham of rhetoric, then we have once again destroyed the underlying requirements of a true system of self-government.

And that, again, is what has happened in the manipulation of these debates. Candidates excluded, viewpoints excluded, but that also means that the candidates who stand on the stage aren't required ever to profess their sincere beliefs.

One way to demonstrate that: consider that this running toward the middle always takes place after the primaries. Why? Because during the primaries, these candidates actually have to rally people 'round true convictions, because the primary process is still, relatively speaking, more open to the different points of view, as we have been told. In the presence of those different points of view, you've got to appeal to the core convictions of those people who are going to want you rather than somebody else, because they think you're going to carry their banner.

That reminds me of George Washington's understanding of what politics should be--not partisan, but leadership in politics should be about raising a standard to which good people can repair, so that they will understand that by standing with you, they will stand for the good things they want for their families, their children, their community, their country.

In a primary process, people tend to pretend, at least, that that's who they are, and they raise such standards, and they want people to work hard for them and to rally 'round--and so, various points of view are expressed and differences are brought out, including on fundamental issues like the moral issues of our time, abortion and sexual responsibility and family, the economic issues like immigration and free trade and things of this kind. They are brought out into the open. You have to profess where you really stand. But then we're told by the media and others, and even by the political side, "Then you run toward the middle."

Now, will somebody explain to me something? How is it that in a primary election you can say I'm for X, Y, and Z, and then in a general election you can get away with not saying you're for X, Y, and Z, and yet we don't just stand up and call you what you are, a bloody liar who has just proved you have no integrity and shouldn't be trusted with any office in this country?

Why isn't that the case? Well, it's not the case because, through media manipulation and the manipulation of debates, certain questions aren't even asked. Why is that important? It's important because you and I both know that the primary process involves the participation of a relative handful of the American electorate.

Some people think that's not as it should be, but I think people will self-select for activism. That's what freedom is all about. Part of having a choice is that you can choose to do nothing. You can choose not to participate. You can let somebody else make that choice for you. So long as the process is open, you have nobody to blame but yourself.

So, in that open process, a handful of people participate. When folks wake up and they look at the general election, and a much larger number of Americans participate, you can get away with a lot because they haven't been watching you.

They haven't been watching you, and when they start to watch you, if you can exclude a lot of these issues that are controversial and that you don't want to talk about, but where you've told your own constituents and your own party that you're strong and you're true and you're brave and you'll fight for 'em, and so forth and so on, then you can get away with things. You can get away with being elected, in spite of the fact that the people voting for you don't really agree with what you're going to do with that power.

Is this a good Idea? Well, I think, at the end of the day, we suffer from it not only because people get elected on a false basis, but because then when it comes to governing, they can only disappoint. When it comes to governing, they can only reduce the sense that citizens have that government represents them as it's supposed to. They can only turn people into cynics because, "Oh, golly! I thought he was this, but he turns out really to be that! And I, Bah! I don't care about this system any more. I'm going home."

That's not just whining. That's a true perception of a hoax, of a lie, of the destroyed trust that results from a manipulated electoral system.

I'd like you to imagine debates that take place in the presence of some real alternatives in the general election for the presidency, in which, for instance, a G. W. Bush has to stand on the stage side-by-side with somebody from the Constitution Party who happens to be speaking from--and this is the irony of the present situation. The candidate from the Constitution Party will speak, chapter and verse, from all of the viewpoints that are actually expressed in the Republican platform. They will stand there, and they will take positions in the debate that are chapter and verse what the Republican party has declared itself to be for at its convention, but what otherwise would never be heard from the Republican candidate.

Similarly, Mr. Kerry. He's running as a military veteran, he's going to want everybody to remember his cachet as a military person. Why? Because military people, by and large, don't have a liberal cachet; aren't identified with that part of the Left that might turn some voters off. Run as a military candidate, you'll pick them up. Run as a liberal, and you might just turn them off. So, he'll run as a military candidate, want everybody to forget the liberalism, want everybody to forget what he has said and done on issues like the environment, on issues like government regulation and other respects, on issues like the moral issues of the time. He won't want people to be talking about that!

Imagine him standing on a stage with a Ralph Nader, with somebody who is standing there out of a sincere conviction, and isn't going to shy away from speaking the truth of his heart to the voters of this country. Well, then, Mr. Kerry's going to be shown up, because he's going to have people sitting there thinking, "Now, why didn't you say that? You're supposed to believe that, and you said you would stand up for that--now it takes Ralph Nader to do what you told us you would do?"

And in that situation, instead of being able to get away with sham rhetoric and empty platitudes and junk that they put in their manipulated commercials, they will have to show the American people in a digested fashion how their statesmanship distinguishes them from the other people on the stage, how their convictions will be respected, even while they strive to represent the best interest of all the people of this country.

You realize, of course, that that's the real challenge of leadership: to be able to stand as best you can for all the people while, nonetheless, standing for the convictions that with integrity you believe to be good for this country, but which are not supported by all the people.

In our electoral process now, we no longer put that challenge of statesmanship to candidates. They are no longer forced to address it in a serious fashion. They are not forced to think through both the policies they stand for and the articulation of those policies in such a way that they answer the demand of the heart of those who have stood with them because they stand for right, and they answer the demand of judgment from those who say, "Well, I disagree with you on this, but you seem like a good guy. Why should I vote for you anyway?" That's a requirement, but they're not forced to confront it.

So, I hope we don't think here that we're just addressing some kind of structural issue, some kind of issue that is incidental to the procedures and the processes. No. The issue that brings us together here, and it's why I think it has brought together such a diversity of people, is an issue that goes to the very heart of that which is supposed to be the essence of our free way of life.

If, in fact, we have lost real choices, and are no longer as a people able to make a real choice in the most important elections of our time, then our republic is dead, our Constitution is meaningless, and our freedom has been reduced to a sham.

I think it's vitally important, nay, it's urgent and critical, that before that death has been confirm in every respect, we resuscitate a true representative system.

And I think a system of open debates that admits to the choice of the American people a true range of those candidates who have worked hard and established their viability, that that is the only way to achieve this resuscitation.

In a final word, I want to tell you, I say it with greater conviction because I'm a Republican, and because I'm a black American. Why? Well, because the Republican party was that party which began--does anybody remember this? A lot of people in the Republican party are so hungry for power that they don't remember the principles, but the Republican party actually began because of a tremendous dissatisfaction with the Whigs who had refused to take a principled stand on slavery.

The Republican party was one of these third-party splinter movements, one of these parties that was gathering up the discontent that resulted in the voters from a lack of integrity on dealing with a fundamental issue of concern to the heart and conscience of the people of this country.

You realize, of course, don't you, that under the structures that we presently live with, the Republican party would have failed, it would have gotten nowhere? And the sad truth of the matter is that we need to remember that.

There are times in American political life when the desertion of principle by the major parties, the desertion of respect for the Constitution, the desertion of respect for the real interest and common good of our people requires that there be a reorientation of the party structure.

If we have come to a time when we let the dominant parties manipulate us in such a way that that can never happen, then we shall face the worst kind of tyranny before the day is done. We need to think hard on this, and we need to take urgent action now to correct it--not as partisans, not as people who are committed to this interest or that interest, or this cause or that cause, but as Americans who still mean to preserve that hope for true and dignified self-government that America is supposed to represent for all of human kind.

For more information on Open Debates, visit www.OpenDebates.org