August 17, 2004

JIM WILLIAMS, HOST: WJBC. Jim Williams, Steve Fast. We're privileged to be joined by the Republican candidate for the Senate this afternoon, that is Dr. Alan Keyes. Dr. Keyes, thanks for being with us.

ALAN KEYES: Glad to have the chance. Thank you very much.

STEVE FAST, CO-HOST [SUBSTITUTING]: So, Dr. Keyes, I guess one of the big issues that of course has come up many times since your candidacy was announced was that whole carpetbagging issue. I know that on the news shows, on Meet the Press and what have you, they've talked about you opposed Hillary Clinton running for Senate in New York. How have you reconciled your opinion on this to run in this race?

KEYES: Well, actually, that was something I had to think through before I could accept the call from the Illinois state Republican Party, because I told them right up front that I had a strong objection in principle to people abusing the states as platforms for their own personal ambition, without regard for state sovereignty and the principles of federalism, which I deeply believe in.

But I think as I looked at this situation, first my attention was arrested by Barack Obama, who is somebody who has rejected the statesmanship of Lincoln, rejected the principles of the Declaration--things that I have fought for all my life. And of course, since he was bidding to become the representative from the State of Illinois, that was also something that particularly arrested my attention, because that's Lincoln's state, and it's one of those elements of our national heritage that really I very closely identify with--both Lincoln and of the heritage of the Declaration. And so, I had to take it seriously.

I think, at the end of the day, the great difference between me and Hillary is clear. I had no thought of coming into Illinois to run for the United States Senate until the people in the state party determined that they needed my help.

So, in terms of the formal requirements of federalism, that satisfies it, because it is done on the basis of a clear decision by the people of the states, rather than as the result of machinations and ambitions of my own. That satisfied, formally, the requirement.

But I also said that that wasn't enough. I had to think it through based on my own principles, and as I was thinking about that I was struck by the motto of the State of Illinois, which is a good summary of federalism, "State sovereignty, national union." And Lincoln, of course, was the statesman who helped us to understand that when the principles of national union are threatened, at that point, you must move to defend those principles, even if it means that for a time state sovereignty is secondary. That's basically what happened during the Civil War.

And somebody like Barack Obama represents that kind of threat, and always has. His extremist position on abortion, his rejection of Declaration principles--that someone like this should waltz into the United States Senate to represent the people of Illinois would be deeply damaging, I believe, to both the principles and our sense of the American heritage.

And I felt like I had a moral obligation, after having spent my whole life claiming that people should put it all on the line to defend these principles, that I had to do the same thing.

WILLIAMS: Now, Ambassador Keyes, on Sunday, after appearing on This Week with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, the reports were that you and Sen. Obama had a bit of a heated exchange, after initially being fairly cordial. You were overheard by some crews kind of talking to each other, pointing fingers at each other. Is there anything that you can tell folks across this part of central Illinois about what was being said there, and are things relatively cordial between the two of you?

KEYES: Well, as I put it to someone the other day, we had an exchange of frank courtesies. [laughs]

WILLIAMS: [laughs] Right?

KEYES: We exchanged courtesies, but also we got into the issue that I think is critical right now. Here's somebody who's stood before the State of Illinois saying that he wanted to serve the people, represent the people, sent a very high flowing letter to Jack Ryan talking about the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and so forth, committed himself in his own proposal to six debates, which he said are needed in order to make sure that people all over the state would get a firsthand exposure to the candidates in the arena--and then, the minute I step into the ring, he backs down and backs away, says he only wants two debates, and essentially acts as if his initial proposal was just a lot of show, which I think, unfortunately, is true.

So, I said to him when we met that, in light of that, I could at least say that I was someone, unlike him, who says what I mean and means what I say, and he obviously does not.

I also, of course, have talked in general about the stance he's been taking. I mean, if he goes from six to two having said that six was what was needed to cover the whole state, right?

WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.

KEYES: Somebody explain to me who he's leaving out, because obviously he thought that six debates were needed to make sure that everyone in the state got a fair look at the candidates. If he goes down to two, that means he's leaving somebody out. Somebody in the state won't get a fair look at the candidates, maybe a lot of people.

So, he's somebody who, I think, is all hype. He presents a certain image--and did it at the national convention--that's totally contradicted by his record, and now he comes forward with a lot of bluster and bravado about debates, and then the minute he's faced with a real opponent reputed to have some ability in this regard, he backs away.

I think we're seeing the real Obama, and it's not somebody who has a sincere desire to serve the people; it's somebody who really is just interested in serving his own ambition, and wants to modify and manipulate the political process in order to do so.

WILLIAMS: It's 2:17, the WJBC. Jim Williams, Steve Fast. In case you just joined us, we're talking to Republican Senate candidate Alan Keyes this afternoon.

FAST: Dr. Keyes, you mentioned you felt that your opponent didn't necessarily represent the feelings of the people. The other day, you'd mentioned that you are, at least in principle, against, or, for, returning the election of U.S. Senators to the state legislature and actually removing the individual votes of districts from electing state senators. Is it odd to be . . .

KEYES: No, no, no. I don't know where you got that. It's United States Senators who were, under our original Constitution . . .

FAST: Right. Yeah--United States Senators.

KEYES: . . . elected by the state legislatures so that the Illinois state legislature would choose the Senator.

FAST: Which is the way it was done before, like, 1913.

KEYES: Yes, it was done before the passage of the 17th Amendment.

FAST: And is it odd to be seeking individual votes for a position that you feel should be elected--or, appointed, I guess I should say--by the state legislature?

KEYES: Well, step number one, of course not. We operate right now under the existing Constitution, and we have to respect its terms. A question was asked me about that, and I simply gave a true answer, that the wisdom of the Founders was superior to the wisdom of the 17th Amendment, and that, in point of fact, the proper federal structure of our Constitution intended that the House of Representatives should represent the people as such, but that the Senate of the United States should represent the state government as sovereign entities.

And, of course, we don't have any representations for the state governments as sovereign entities, so the balance of the Constitution has been deeply impaired, and I think that the effective representation of the real interests of the states as sovereign entities has not been respected over the course of the years since that amendment was passed--and that has had some really damaging consequences.

So, the question was asked of my opinion on this, based on the knowledge that I have after years of constitutional study, and I gave my opinion. I made it very clear, that's not a priority in the Keyes campaign. I've made clear what the priorities are.

We need to address the crisis of the moral foundations of family and community in this country, and the issues involved in that crisis.

We need to replace the income tax.

We need to give people control--not just access to, but control--over the educational institutions in their own community.

We need to address what has been the damaging impact of our national trade policies on jobs and opportunities as they should be available to the people of Illinois.

Those are the priorities that I address. But I'll be frank with you. When I am asked a straight question, I will give a straight answer based on the knowledge that God has allowed me to accumulate over the course of a lifetime.

WILLIAMS: And, of course, you do have a Ph.D from Harvard. Both you and Sen. Obama went to Harvard.

And here is one, Dr. Keyes, that was asked of us off the air just before you joined us--just seconds before you joined us, in fact. One of our listeners would like to know about the very latest stance that you have regarding slave reparations. There has been a lot of buzz about that--and explain to listeners, if you would, what your position is on the issue and where that issue should go.

KEYES: Well, I have consistently opposed what amount to extortion efforts by people who have been trying to go into court, get billions or trillions of dollars in settlements from their fellow citizens, and so forth, and I have said that I think that that is wrong. I have opposed that because I, frankly, believe that in those terms, the sacrifice of blood and treasure of the Civil War was sufficient requital for the terrible injustice of slavery. Lincoln, himself, regarded it as such, and I think we shouldn't be second-guessing Lincoln's judgment or the great sacrifices of the people who risked them, who gave their lives in that terrible conflict.

On the other hand, I have said repeatedly over the years, there was objective damage done and left by slavery--and over the course of time, you and I both know America has tried to address that damage. Forty acres and a mule right after the Civil War, all the way up through the Great Society programs under Johnson, Affirmative Action under Nixon.

I think there should be an awareness that slavery and its legacy left material damage in the black community as an objective fact, but they've always been wrong about how to address it. And in that context, I have put an idea on the table over the course of the years that I think not only arises from my conservative and Republican values, but would actually do what the Great Society and others things did not, would work with people in such a way as to free their incentive, give them incentives to work, to own businesses, to save and invest in the concrete and real market economy. And that is an example taken from the old Roman Empire, where, when a community was damaged, in a context where the government either abetted that damaged or should have prevented it, the community was given tax relief for a certain time.

And I think that that would have been the best approach, and may still be the best approach to this whole problem of how one deals with the damaging material legacy of slavery. . . .

FAST: Dr. Keyes . . .

KEYES: . . . exempt those who are the descendants of slaves, who bear the wounds, in fact, of that legacy, exempt them from federal taxation for a certain length of time. And in doing so, without taking money out of anybody else's pocket, you give them an incentive to work, to save, and invest, that would help to put a strong foundation under their future.

FAST: Dr. Keyes, I think that that issue comes to light in the fact that we have two black candidates for this position. What do you think the role of race is in reaching out to you and selecting you outside of our own state to run for this position? Do you think your party was looking for a black candidate?

KEYES: Well, that's a question you should ask them. I don't know why people keep thinking I should be looking into the minds of the people in the Illinois state party who made this decision. I'm not God, and I can't read the human heart.

I do know that they did say that by choosing a black candidate they took race off the table. I also know that the last two people they considered were both of us African Americans, and the choice for Alan Keyes was therefore not based on race. It was based on this unique combination of qualities, capabilities, national reputation and base that I represented that would make sure the people of Illinois had a true choice, and that that choice could mount an effective campaign against somebody from the hard Left that the media was trying to build up into someone who was inevitably going to just run roughshod into the Illinois Senate, regardless, in fact, I think, of the real views of the people.

So, I think that the decision was governed, at least on my part, by a desire to address that crisis and to deal with the challenge that it posed by somebody who has so thoroughly rejected the principles of the American Declaration, and really the foundational principles of the American way of life, as Barack Obama has.

WILLIAMS: We have about three more minutes to spend with Dr. Alan Keyes, Republican candidate for the Senate in Illinois. Doctor, you have been quite clear, I think, in your positions regarding what some people call abortion, some people call choice, some people call a woman's right to choose. Give folks a very firm idea as to exactly what your stance is on that. In past years, it's been a significant issue, and we understand it may become again.

KEYES: Well, I think it is the pivotal issue of principle in this campaign--one that, apparently, Barack Obama doesn't even see, because when he wrote to Jack Ryan, he said there was no fundamental issue of principle in the campaign. That's not true. He is an extremist. He is so committed to the abortion position that he has even opposed legislation to stop the heinous practice of live-birth abortion--the Infants Born Alive bill that was considered by the Illinois state legislature, that still languishes in the legislature now.

A similar bill passed the U.S. Senate, 98-0, with even people like Teddy Kennedy--imagine that--who said that he couldn't stomach this heinous practice. And yet, Barack Obama is willing to stand aside and let it happen, opposes efforts to stop it.

And I think that that clearly illustrates he's not just committed to this position, he's committed it in the most extreme form possible.

And what does it represent? A rejection of the same Declaration principles that slavery violated: we are all created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. That's the fundamental premise of our whole way of life, and yet, there he stands denying that equality to babes in the womb. Denying that equality to them, why? Because they don't have equal physical development, as we do.

And I'm sitting here thinking to myself, "But that's the same kind of argument that was made against my ancestors." That kind of argument laid the groundwork for the sort of discrimination and inequality that could affect any American at any time, and lead us into a society of unequal rather than equal respect for the rights of every human being. I think that that is fundamental.

FAST: Well, Mr. Keyes . . . and I think that you say that your opponent is extreme, I would say to the Left, on abortion. There are a lot of people that would probably say you are extreme on your views of abortion to the Right. I mean, you've been quoted as referring to abortion as evil.

KEYES: It is! Excuse me for saying so . . .

FAST: That's fine if that's your position, but I just want to articulate, would you consider in this act as evil are the people that--the doctors and the women that perform and receive abortions, are they evil, as well?

KEYES: Well, let me just state the objective fact. Right now, we are engaged in a war against terror. What distinguishes terror from ordinary warfare is that a terrorist consciously targets innocent human life, uses violence, and consciously targets that life to achieve their agenda. What is the heart of abortion? Consciously targeting innocent human life. I think we are caught now in a time when the evil that we fight is the shadow of the evil that we do. And we need to think this through, because at the level of our moral commitment to the fight against terrorism, this kind of thing could lead to terrible moral confusion of conscience as we have to wage the battle to secure this nation against these vicious terrorists.

So, don't blame me for the objective fact--and the objective fact is that abortion reflects the same principle of evil, and it's a principle totally, totally contradicted by the view that we are all created equal, that justice requires that we respect everybody's rights, even those who are helpless and voiceless in the womb.

So, it is simply a fact. I state that fact because I believe that one has to stand before people, speak the truth with integrity, and really let the chips fall where they may.

FAST: Mr. Keyes, do you think that, if this act is, as you say, as heinous as it is, people that have been performing abortions in the past in this state should be sought after legally? If it is to that degree of evil of the statement, should they be punished?

KEYES: Well, the first thing that we have to do is to reestablish legal protection for the basic and fundamental right of the innocent unborn. And folks who ask questions that imply that somehow or another this is going to be prosecuted in a way that doesn't serve sensitively, for instance, the real emotional crisis that women are involved in--this was never the case in America. You are raising a boogeyman. Because, in point of fact, before the Supreme Court took the unjustifiable step of violating our principles in order to allow for this unlimited abortion, there were laws against abortion in all the states, and there was no vindictiveness, there was no heartlessness, there was no cruelty, there was no hardheartedness. Basically, people pursued it with a view to trying to discourage a practice that ignored the fundamental rights of innocent babes.

So, to imply that the American people would pursue this in some vindictive and heartless way, that's nonsense. It is not justified by the record.

I think we need to address first the issue of principle, restore proper protection for those innocent lives, and trust ourselves to implement and administer the system that protects their lives in a way that respects the requirements of decency and humanitarian compassion.

WILLIAMS: And then, finally, Dr. Keyes, if you become a Senator, of course, you would be dealing extensively with foreign policy. You've said in the past that routine military intervention is wrong and that the U.S. should renounce interference with the affairs with other nations. How does that square with the president's current effort in Iraq?

KEYES: Well, meaning no offense, have we forgotten that we're at war, that we're involved in the most insidious war I think this country may ever have faced, and that the decision to go into Iraq was to open a front in that war, based on intelligence that suggested that Saddam Hussein was in fact looking to develop weapons of mass destruction, had the contacts to put them in the hands of terrorists?

You know, I am opposed to any policies that would have us acting as the policeman of the world--but don't tell me that a president who acts in the wake of an attack like September 11th to preemptively prevent terrorists from using even more harmful weapons against our people is acting in some routine fashion. We do not live right now in routine times. We are in the midst of a war. And a president who did not in fact act to defend the lives of our people against the threat that his intelligence was indicating existed would be irresponsible. Thank God President Bush is not irresponsible.

FAST: Mr. Keyes, what do you think the role of healthcare and the need to--is there a need for legislation to help people with healthcare in the state of Illinois?

KEYES: Well, I think we need to have some legislation that will, first of all, address the fact that we have a health system that has pushed the consumer out of the picture. I often tell people, if we bought cars the way we bought healthcare, we'd probably have cars as expensive and in some ways as ineffective as some parts of our healthcare system--and we don't. The third-party payer system, the government-dominated various elements of the insurance system, all of them remove the power from the consumer to establish the relationship between price and quality in dealing with health services.

That's why I favor ideas like medical savings accounts, things that empower the consumer of medical services to make the kind of choices and exercise the role that they do elsewhere in the marketplace, in order to guarantee effective service and quality of service at the lowest price. That's why I also look at things like the availability of drugs and have taken a position that says that we must restore competition, we must allow our consumers to have access to drugs that are produced at a lower price, so long as they are safely produced--and that, I think, is also important.

So, yes indeed, I have taken this stance. And I know people in the media often come back with questions, because if you don't give an answer that says, "Spend government money. Establish a government bureaucracy. Be a socialist," they pretend you haven't answered the question. I will not give such an answer, because I don't believe it's the right answer.

FAST: I have one follow up about that. What is your opinion, then--the governor of Illinois is working to make it so there's a free market internationally with drugs and importing drugs from Canada.

KEYES: I think I just answered that question.

FAST: You say that's OK?

KEYES: I actually am not one of these Republicans who believes that one follows mindlessly the free trade mantra. I am not one of these Republicans that believes either that you don't look at the impact of decisions on your own people. I think that our people ought to have access to effective drugs, so long as we have determined their safety, at the lowest possible price, regardless of the source of those drugs.

And I think we should stop treating people like they're criminals just because they're trying to make ends meet when they face a health problem.

WILLIAMS: Well, former doctor--excuse me, former ambassador, Dr. Alan Keyes. Thanks so much for spending some time with us, and we hope it's only the first of several conversations between now and election day.

KEYES: I hope so, myself. Thank you for the opportunity.

WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.

FAST: Thank you, Dr. Keyes.