MP3 audio

Alan Keyes
December 11, 1998
Wayne, New Jersey

Good evening. Thank you very much.

Several years ago, when I got involved in the late, unlamented presidential campaign and was talking about the nation's moral crisis, I actually found that, in delineating my belief that that moral crisis was the number one crisis of this nation's life, I met with a lot of skepticism from audiences. Now, of course, there were folks who would stand up and applaud. But then there were others, who would give polite applause, but you could tell that they weren't thoroughly convinced that that moral perspective, that that moral priority, made sense.

Now I have actually been going about the country, still saying the same thing, in the course of the last several months. Guess what? I don't get nearly the same degree of skepticism. I wonder why not.

Do any of you think that you could figure that out?

You see, sadly speaking, we know why not, don't we? It does not require any effort, any longer, to illustrate the devastating effect that our moral crisis is having on our country, because we are right now witnessing, at the highest levels in our land, the threat which that moral crisis directly poses to the integrity of our institutions, and to our own confidence in our way of life.

And I believe that that juxtaposition is no accident, and we oughtn't to treat it as one. Instead of running away from the truth that it represents, we need to take a good, hard look at the issues that are raised by the current crisis--not just as they touch upon the immediate decisions that have to be taken . . . "How do you deal with this or that wrongdoing?" "How do you respond to the crisis of Bill Clinton and the presidency?" and so forth. I think it is a narrow perspective to try to believe that this is the crisis of one man or of one institution. I have listened to a lot of the psycho-babblers on various television programs trying to explain to us "what makes Bill Clinton what he is." And I think that the more interesting question for examination is why he is where he is.

And that, of course, is not a question about Bill Clinton so much as it is a question about the American people--about who we are and what we have become. And more and more everyday I think we see, as the current crisis of impeachment develops, that that question about us--who we are; what our principles are; what our conscience is about; what it will stand or tolerate; how this relates to the future of our country and our institutions--that question about us becomes more and more the central issue of the crisis.

And that is not an accident. For, in fact, what we are witnessing is but one element of the moral crisis which besets this nation overall, and which I sincerely believe will come to a head in this time, in order to determine the future of our institutions of self-government. By what we decide, both in the immediate crisis of impeachment and with respect to the larger issues that embody the moral challenge of our time, we will determine whether or not self-government continues in America, or whether, like previous republics, this one perishes--perishes because it can no longer maintain the moral environment, the moral foundations, the moral culture, that is needed to sustain it.

Now, of course, there are going to be those who would disagree with my characterization of the republic as having moral foundations. We think of ourselves more in terms of our material achievements, don't we? We think in terms of our wonderful military power, our wonderful economy, our dominance of the world in respect of all these outward signs of material success. And by virtue of those thoughts, I think we are distracted from the fundamental reality of who and what we are as a people.

That can have some pretty devastating implications, because among other things we are probably among, if not the, most diverse people that has ever been assembled in the history of mankind. We have folks who come from every background, race, creed, nation--you name it, we're here. And though sometimes we can take great pride in that, and point to its great advantages, we have to realize--don't we?--that given the history of human relationships, the business of living together in peace over a long period of time when you have such a diverse representation of humanity is a tough challenge.

We have taken it for granted for a long while that we can meet that challenge, because we have. But what if we destroy fundamental prerequisites for the common ground on which we stand as a people? A common ground that is not constituted by our economic life, not constituted by our military power--indeed, competition in the materialistic areas of life can be the source of division and conflict, as it is certainly in other parts of the world. I think that the recipe for the unity of America's national identity can't be found in those materialistic factors, which tend more often than not to bring us into conflict and competition. I think they have to be found in the moral identity of this people, and in those things which, even though we don't always articulate them, even though we sometimes only honor them in the breach, are those things which actually constitute the ground and foundation of that moral identity.

I think that perhaps more than any other people in the history of humankind we are in fact, as a people, defined by these common moral principles--principles that, at some level, have but to be articulated, and there is a motion of the heart in just about every American breast. The best formulation, the most succinct formulation of them, is in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

We hear those words reasonably frequently, I suppose. I'm sad to say we don't hear them as frequently as maybe we once did in the country's life and history. But I wonder if we ever stop long enough to try to understand their serious implications. Not just their implications in terms of the license that they give us to whine about our rights--we are, of course, a people these days very given to that, aren't we? I think it must be maybe the second favorite national pastime.

The first favorite national pastime is pretending that the first favorite national pastime is sexual, which, of course, it isn't. But leave that aside.

We have a strong sense, somehow, that we have rights, that we can stand up and look anybody in the eye and assert those rights, organize in order to pursue them, and so forth. This notion that we have rights is one of those things that seems to be common to all Americans. And, of course, a willingness to stand up any day of the week and make sure that everybody knows that we will insist on their being respected--that's pretty common too.

But what we fail to see, sometimes, I think, is that those great first principles of our nation's life--though, in the end, they reach a conclusion about rights--are not in the first instance a statement about rights. They are a statement about the authority from which those rights derive. We need to pause and think about that, because we are a people who think of ourselves in terms of rights, rather than authority. And yet our claim to rights comes from a certain statement about the authority from which they derive.

And the question is, if we deny the authority, can we hold on to the rights? If we turn our back on the authority, will we retain the rights? If we act in ways that contravene and contradict the idea that there is such a higher authority, will we sustain the system, the way of life, that is based upon those rights?

Logically speaking, I think that it is pretty clear that we won't. It is difficult for a house to stand when you have knocked out the foundations. And as this is the foundation of this house of liberty, when we knock it out from under the house, the house will collapse.

But that would mean that as a people we derive our rights--we derive our system of self-government, we derive due process and elections and all these other things we take for granted--from a fundamental acknowledgment that there is a will higher than human will, higher than human power, and that it is that will that we must respect, whose authority we must have regard for, and that is the ultimate foundation for our claim to human rights and human dignity.

Can we easily turn our back on that premise, and still keep those rights? I believe not, though we have for the last couple of decades at least, if not more, been engaged pretty much overtly in an experiment based on the notion that we can--an experiment that has many manifestations: no prayer in public schools; a doctrine of separation of church and state that amounts to driving any concept of God or the creator from our public square.

I wonder if most Americans, when they listen to the debate over those issues, realize what the implications are. Because once you have driven out the authority from which our rights derive, on what basis will we claim them? Habit? "We have them because we have always had them"? Well, when someone comes along with sufficient force to take them away, that argument is not going to hold, is it? They'll just change that. So we have been engaged in an experiment that would seem to have very dangerous implications for the preservation of our liberty, and that actually, as we speak, is working itself out in terms of precise consequences for this nation and for its institutions.

Though it is hard to see it, I know, through all of the verbiage that is flying about these days, that is actually what the impeachment crisis is about. Some say that it is about whether or not we are going to have a President who is above the law. And actually I have heard arguments that suggest that, yes, this is definitely an explicit issue before us. Some of the President's defenders seem to think we do already have a President, among other officials, who is above the law.

I had that experience just recently. I was on Chris Matthews' "Hardball"--do y'all watch "Hardball" sometimes?--and one of the other guests who was on with me was Alan Dershowitz. You may have heard of Alan Dershowitz; he is, as you may know, a Harvard Law School professor. Now, this is a very distinguished position. As some of you may have heard in my resume, or may have read, I actually went to Harvard. I don't know which of us would be faster to disown the other these days, Harvard or me. But in any case, I did get my education from Harvard. And there was the Harvard Law School professor.

And I realized as he was speaking that some things apparently have changed at Harvard since I left. Because he looked the camera in the eye and he said, "Presidents are above the law." He said this; yes, he did. He wasn't content with that, though. He went through a long litany of public officials--senators, congressmen, judges, prosecutors--it seems like all the people in government, practically, in his eyes, are above the law. He also shared with me the startling revelation that the Constitution says that Presidents can commit certain crimes. He said that. You don't believe me! He did. He said that.

Now, you know that the Constitution is a fairly short document. Even if you are not prone to spend much time reading, you can probably get through the Constitution in a matter of minutes, if you try real hard. You could read it a hundred times, you could read it a thousand times, and you would still have a little time left over in any given week, probably. But I'll tell you, you could read it a hundred times or a thousand times, you will never find anywhere in it the words that the President has the right to commit certain crimes. And it would come as a deep surprise to anybody who has ever considered the Constitution before, I think.

But not to Mr. Dershowitz. Which led me to the conclusion that things have changed at Harvard since I left, and that apparently Harvard Law School professors now have a privilege that I don't remember being listed as one of their perquisites in the past: the privilege of lying about what is in the Constitution. It was one of the few times in recent years that I actually felt a sense of relief that I had a Harvard doctorate. And that was because I figured that if the Harvard Law School professorate gave you the right to lie about what was in the Constitution, then at the very least a Harvard doctorate gave you the right to call that person a liar.

So I did.

But the story aside, the thing that I think we have to focus on is that that argument--Presidents are above the law--is implicit in pretty much everything that is being said in defense of the President these days. Oh, they have given up trying to say that he hasn't done anything wrong, hasn't done anything illegal. They will dance around it a little bit to try to keep him out of jail later on--but basically you have people who kind of acknowledging: "Oh, all right. So he did it. So what?" And they are telling us, "He's doing a good job. It doesn't matter anyway. And, in any case, he was elected"--as Professor Higgenbotham said the other day--"by 49% of the American people. He was elected twice, and we don't have the right to overturn this."

Can I indulge in an aside here, just for a minute? Because I have to confess that watching Professor Higgenbotham make that statement, in which the implication is that the majority will overrides justice, and that the majority will determines whether or not one should take wrongdoing seriously . . . is it just me, or does that argument seem particularly ironic, coming from a black judge--someone who looks back to the civil rights tradition in this country?

I just find it very strange--this majoritarianism that has suddenly taken over the minds of some of the people in the Democrat Party, which is so totally contrary to the principles that helped to change the conscience of this nation during the Civil Rights Era. Principles that were espoused by Martin Luther King and by others, and that represented the simple, clear statement that there are times when principles of justice and basic human rights override the majority; that we as a people understand that there is a ground for justice on which we stand; that that ground of justice involves respect for basic principles that guarantee the rights of individuals, and minorities, but that also require respect for an authority that binds us in our exercise of our rights; and that when we violate that authority--to discriminate, to be prejudiced, to be bigoted, or to violate the fundamental rights and oaths that constitute our responsibility as individuals--that we are doing something that is contrary to morality, and decency, and right, and conscience, and that will in the end destroy us as a people.

That is where Professor Higgenbotham comes from, and now he has gone to a position that says that it doesn't matter whether the President does wrong, because a majority said so. That sense that we must acknowledge a higher authority, and that that higher authority even binds the will of the majority, must even be respected when you constitute a majority in a legislature and are contemplating an unjust act, when you have been elected by a majority to the White House and are contemplating an act that violates the laws and Constitution of the country--it is BASIC to who we are. And to turn our backs on that principle actually constitutes a rejection of the fundamental moral premises from which the nation began.

But, you see, I believe that it is consequence rather than cause, here. We are hearing the argument that "Presidents are above the law," and we are listening patiently to it, because we have already accepted a fundamental lie that prepares our minds for the abandonment of those basic principles that constitute our moral identity as a people. We listen as they tell us that Presidents are above the law, because we have accepted a doctrine, we have accepted a policy, we have accepted a lie, that has us believing that we are above God's law.

And I know that I will be accused by many people, as I often am, of introducing religion into our political discussion and all of this--this is nonsense. If it was done, then it was done at the very beginning, when they said that our rights come from the hand of the Creator. And I will shamelessly stand on that Declaration. And I will, with everything that is in me, defy those who wish us to throw it away.

Because without it I believe that there is no protection in conscience from the inclinations and temptations of tyranny and oppression--no appeal, to any tribunal, once human beings have joined together, in their mobs, in order to oppress and destroy the rights of those so unfortunate as to fall under their power.

You can try to convince me otherwise if you like, but I come from a background that will take a lot of convincing. My ancestors walked that dark path. And but for the hold that those great principles had upon the conscience of this nation, I would be walking that path still. Come along now and tell me that it is safe to turn our back on the principle that requires that every human power--whatever its military force, whatever the majority that backs it--still must respect the higher authority which guarantees my rights and dignity, and I won't be so stupid as to join you, though others may be. Because without that fundamental guarantee in conscience, there will not be in enough of us the courage to lift our eyes up from the ground, to look our would-be masters in the eye, and to defy them when they oppress us, as freedom requires.

This is the heritage, this is the legacy, of our country--not a heritage that has the king "doing no wrong." Not a heritage that has the lickspittles of power telling us that once you have the emblems and offices of power you may commit crimes with impunity. This represents the abandonment of our tradition.

But if we abandon it with respect to a President in an impeachment crisis, it is not just because of the President and the impeachment crisis. It is because our consciences have already been assaulted. It is because our respect for the fundamental principles has already been undermined by our adherence to a doctrine that, though they claim it is connected with some form of human freedom and choice, actually represents the destruction of the principles of freedom which give us the right to choose.

For you see, the crisis of impeachment--which has them telling us that Bill Clinton is above the law--is directly related, in my opinion, to the crisis that came upon this nation's life in its focused form twenty-five and thirty years ago, when the Supreme Court of the United States falsely declared that women have the right to take the life of their children in the womb.

"Alan! What is the connection? That's far-fetched! That can't be true!"

Sure it can. And it is true by a simple logic, as a matter of fact. Either our rights come from the hand of the Creator, or they come from human hands. Either our right to life, and our claim to be respected at every moment of that life, is grounded in a decision, a determination by the Creator, or it is grounded in a human will, a human decision, a human choice. You can't have it both ways.

And so when they come to us and they say, "Women have the right to choose with respect to that life in the womb," they are dethroning the authority of the Creator. They are saying to us that each and every one of us--because, last time I looked, we mostly came here by way of the womb--had no rights that had to be respected until a human choice was made. It moves the locus of authority for the foundation of our claim to rights and human dignity from the hands of God to mere human hands. And once that translation is made, it is only a matter of time before those rights are surrendered altogether.

And we are seeing that work itself out right now. Having chosen, ourselves, to accept an argument of tyranny with respect to the child in the womb, we are listening more and more comfortably to the arguments of tyranny that are being made with respect to our institutions in this world. And therefore I don't think it is any accident either that the crisis that has come upon us in the presidency has taken the form of sexual moral corruption. Because it is in the context of sexual libertinism that we have chosen decisively to turn our backs on the fundamental premises of our liberty.

These are not distinct crises; they are the same. And I believe that Providence, in its wisdom, has brought before us, in the crisis of this White House, the ideal situation for apprising us of that juxtaposition--if we are willing to understand what we are looking at.

So the moral crisis of the country becomes the moral crisis of our institutions of self-government, because the manifestation of that moral crisis in its deepest form involves us in the rejection of the principle that there is a moral authority beyond human will that must condition human choice. And so because we become, in that sense of principle, a lawless people, we find ourselves in the midst of a crisis that in the end, if we accept the premises that are being brought to us, will result in a lawless government.

It is a frightening prospect. And it is one that I am not sure we want to face, or that we fully understand. But we should see this current impeachment crisis as just one element of this larger difficulty. And we should know, I believe, that no matter what the Congress decides about the impeachment of Bill Clinton, it will not bring the crisis to an end.

If as I and some others believe they should do, they move forward and pass articles of impeachment, and they remove him from office, we will have dealt with one situation in which the corruption of our conscience threatened us with the imminent destruction of our institutions. But that corruption of our conscience will remain. And it will remain as long as we accept the lying doctrine that involves us in the rejection of the fundamental principle that our rights, including the right to life, come not from human choice but from the hands of God.

That means that we cannot escape our crisis until, with courage, we have faced the deep moral issue that overshadows everything in our time, wrestled with it in our conscience, argued it out, and decided upon it--as surely as we had to decide upon the issues of slavery and civil rights. It is a national crisis--a time of judgment and decision--that we cannot escape.

In the course of the weeks and months ahead, we are going to face critical decisions as a people, in our politics and elsewhere. Folks will be coming forward to tell us that there are all kinds of issues more important than these--issues that are aimed at playing upon our selfish passions, at treating us as if the only thing that we care about as a people is our material comfort, how much money we earn, how much money there will be to provide security for us hither and thither and yon, to manipulate us into becoming the mere subjects of material passion.

If we accept this approach to politics, and follow those who would have us turn our backs upon those issues that confront us with the moral crisis of our time, then that crisis will deepen. And its manifestations, in our crumbling families, in the broken consciences of our children, in the utter loss of honor and integrity in our institutions, will continue and continue until it destroys the republic.

And that is inevitable, unless we are willing as a people to do what our ancestors always had to do. For, just as in the beginning, the question could not be escaped by the patriots in the American Revolution, and in the 19th century the question of this nation's moral principles could not be escaped in the issues of slavery, as in the 1960's they could not be escaped with respect to the issues of civil rights, so they will not be escaped today. And if we mean to survive as the people that I believe we are intended to be, then we must confront them not only by dealing with integrity with the crisis of trust and decency and truth that besets the presidency today, but by dealing with integrity with the crisis of lawlessness and licentiousness that besets our own lives and consciences as a people.

It will not be easy. But what on earth makes you think that being a free people is easy? If it were easy, we would not look back upon thousands of years of human slavery and serfdom. If it were easy, then the history of this people would not be so unique in the history of the world.

We must decide whether we still have the character to be free. And I believe that it will be essential in the months and years ahead for our leaders to present that decision to us with honesty, so that we can make it with integrity, and save this nation's future for our children--so that they will grow up to a heritage of liberty.

I feel this strongly, because I look back on ancestors who were slaves, and who were then disbarred by oppressive and unjust laws from full participation in citizenship. One of the things that most breaks my heart, when I think of it, is the thought that in these generations, just as my people arrive at this banquet table of freedom, the house will collapse around our heads.

Will we let this happen? Don't think that it is up to Congress, or the Supreme Court. For in the end, this crisis of our nation's moral heart must be decided in our hearts, and then we, as citizens will have to be the leaders that mark out this nation's path to moral renewal.

Thank you very much.

Question and answer session:

Question: Bill Clinton hardly invented sex in the White House. Before him we had John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson. Franklin Roosevelt had Lucy Mercer and Missy LaHand, and even died in the arms of Lucy Mercer. It was rumored that Eisenhower kept his ambulance driver from the war at close hand. We don't know how many illegitimate children Thomas Jefferson had. None of these people were ever asked to speak before a grand jury, so we don't know whether they would have lied or not.

But in the meantime, going back to the time of our early fore-fathers, this country has continued to grow, and prosper, and get better, and get stronger, to the point where people from other lands try to immigrate to this country because it is one of the best, if not the best, in the world. And people are still trying to come here, rather than trying to leave it, because we are so great, despite the fact that we have sex in the White House, or in our bedrooms, or anywhere else where it should be kept private.

I would like your comments on that!

Dr. Keyes: It is an interesting premise that the present crisis in the White House is about sex in the White House. I don't know why it is that this lady assumed that all the other married Presidents didn't have sex in the White House. I think that is a kind of insult to their marital relations. So the notion that somehow or another Bill Clinton has a special claim on sex in the White House has not been asserted by anyone.

The fact that he has a special claim on pursuing his sexual relations in a way that shows contempt for the people of this country, for the requirements of his office, and for the integrity of his oath, now that--that is special. And that is the real issue.

And let's be clear about this. In the first instance, there is nothing more important in the practical life of a republic than the integrity and sanctity of oaths. I know that as a people we ignore this sometimes, because we take so much of the good things that we have for granted. The lady talks of our greatness and our strength, and so forth. And I assure you . . . and she knows good and well that not a single one of the episodes she talked about--some of which are merely alleged, you understand; there is a lot of slander going around about past Presidents that has no substantiation. But even those things that have substantiation, had they been generally known to the publics of their day, the Presidents would have been tossed out on their ear. And that is an indication of the conscience and integrity that, in point of fact, drew people here.

Also, of course, the fact that it was taken for granted in our public life, more important than any sexual foibles, that oaths mean something. That when you swear an oath, you are obliged to keep it. That if you do not, particularly with respect to public office, that breaking of your public trust declares you to be unfit for office, and you must be removed.

That is the simple truth about what confronts us with Bill Clinton. All the other issues are irrelevant.

It doesn't matter about what issue the test of character emerges in such a situation. It doesn't matter whether the issue is sex, whether the issue is money, whether the issue is the satisfaction of some other human passion. When, for the sake of private passion, we break the solemn oaths that we have made before God and to the American people, we should be removed from office. Period. End of sentence.

And I would ask you to consider what we don't want to consider, what our people in Congress seem so blind that they do not consider. I raised early on in this discussion--and some people reacted with great surprise when I did so, saying, "Oh! I never thought of that"--the fact that the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. We take a lot of things for granted in America that a reading of history would suggest we had better not take for granted. One of the things we take for granted is military respect for civilian authority. It is very important to a republic's life. Time and again, republics in the past perished when that respect for civilian authority and institutions was lost, and military people awoke to the reality that if might makes right. If it is the force of numbers, and if it is the force of mere material power that determines legitimacy--they HAVE the numbers, and they HAVE the material power in their hands.

When military people wake up to this fact, and have consciences that are no longer bound by honor and the respect for oaths, NOTHING CAN SAVE A REPUBLIC FROM THEM. And that has been the truth in human history. And we sit right now in the midst of a crisis where the Commander in Chief shows the utmost contempt for his oath.

Not only in court. Everybody is acting as if the word "perjury" means "to tell a lie." That is not what the word "perjury" literally means. "Perjurare" literally means to forswear, to swear falsely, to take an oath that you do not respect. Bill Clinton took an oath in court that he did not respect. In showing his contempt for the judicial branch and the integrity of the execution of the laws, he violated the oath he took before the American people, his oath of office. In corrupting--in his person--the moral credibility and authority of the White House, he undermined the integrity and credibility of an entire branch of government.

I find it amazing; I was watching William Weld the other day, and he was up there saying, "Well, (to be impeachable) these actions must constitute an assault on the government, on the system of government. They must be subversive of government." The President's lawyers made the same argument. This is true, by the way. I think it is true.

But it is not true in the way that they state it. First, it is not just an assault on "government." Isn't it funny how these liberals only think about government? Hamilton, when he wrote about (impeachable offenses), talked about "immediate damage to society," not just to government.

If you think that through, by the way, it means that even adultery, in the White House, is an impeachable offense. Because in that visible, high, public place, it does immediate damage, fatal damage, to the sense of integrity, and fidelity, and responsibility needed to maintain the fundamental institution of society, which is the family. And if Hamilton was right in his definition of an impeachable offense, it is not an assault on government, but an assault on society that constitutes one of the grave elements of such an offense. And Bill Clinton's scandalous conduct constitutes an assault on the society in its most fundamental institution.

That's an argument you didn't hear in Congress, but it is still a good one.

And the second point, of course, is this. A lot of people don't realize this either. When we appoint somebody to the Supreme Court, that is a member of the Supreme Court. When somebody gets elected to Congress, that is a member of Congress. But when you get elected to the presidency of the United States, the Constitution is very clear: the executive power of the government shall be vested in a President. Not in a presidency. Not in an office. In a person.

And what does this mean? That person IS the executive branch. That person's moral credibility is the moral credibility of the executive branch. That person's moral authority is the moral authority of the executive branch.

When Bill Clinton, in his personal conduct, sacrificed moral authority and moral credibility, he assaulted the moral foundations of the entire executive branch. He assaulted one of the key elements of our system of government. This is, by definition even of the Democrats, an impeachable offense.

We are losing sight of the meaning of "high" in "high crimes and misdemeanors." The absurd notion that there is a high crime ought to have by now struck people, if we weren't so low-minded. It might occur to us that all crime is by definition low. And therefore when I say "high crime," I can't mean a crime that is higher than other crimes--what kind of devils do we become if we start grading crimes in that way? No, that is not what it means. Do you know what it means? It means a crime that is high in the sense that it is in a high place, in a high position, and that therefore the person committing that crime may be beyond the reach of ordinary law.

By definition, the executive of the law commits such crimes, when he commits crimes. Why? Because he is beyond the reach of the long arm of the law, by definition. How come he is beyond the reach of the long arm of the law? Because he IS the long arm of the law! He is the one committing the crimes, and as a result we are in a position where the executive, the one who is responsible for executing the law, becomes the criminal. By virtue of his high position, therefore, any crimes that he commits become high crimes. And crimes that would be negligible in ordinary citizens become deeply serious, and can be utterly destructive, when tolerated in such high positions of government.

And so, (regarding) all this talk and nonsense about looking at: "Well, this is just sex, and that is trivial, and so forth." Excuse me. When you are sitting in the White House, when you are bearing the responsibility of the presidency, when you have sworn the solemn oath to the people of this country that you will, 24 hours a day, be the faithful executor of their laws, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TRIVIAL BREACH OF THAT TRUST! And this certainly was not one.

Question: I'd like to say, Mr. Keyes, first, I did enjoy your presentation, and I agree with much of what you say, particularly as it relates to the impeachment crisis that is going on. And like many other people I watch these endless TV shows at night. They are all pretty interesting, even though I suspect that they replay them every night, because it is the same thing they are talking about.

But one of the things you hear is about the President not being treated equally, or being above the law. And they have even brought out, and I have heard, people who have been prosecuted for perjury, and specifically for perjury about sexual matters, speak and describe themselves. And I have heard about the judges who were impeached and why, and the people, related to the President, who voted for impeachment.

But would you consider it still placing the President above the law were he not impeached, but yet indicted and tried for perjury upon the expiration of his term?

Dr. Keyes: Well, yes. The reason is kind of a prudential one, among other things. Let us assume that we adopt the view that, as Alan Dershowitz says, presidents can commit certain crimes. And they commit these crimes while they are in office and then, after they leave office, we go after them--we get them for these crimes. If you don't think about that for more than a couple of seconds, you might even think it made sense.

But then you stop and think. And you look at the present situation, and you say to yourself, "Hmm. The wrongdoing that the President is accused of doing, and the specific crimes that he is accused of doing, perjuries and all, were done in order to cover up his wrongdoing." A light bulb will then go on, and you will realize that if you give the President the license to commit crimes while he is in office, among the crimes he commits will be the crimes needed to cover up his crimes. Aha! Amazing thought!

So that means that you will want to prosecute him after he leaves office, only there will be no evidence, and there will be no witnesses, and there will probably not even be any prosecutors with the desire to prosecute him. Not if he is thorough.

And don't tell me that I am talking about some nonsense. Are we living in the 20th century or not? Are we looking back upon decade after decade after decade in which individuals, in every country in the world, practically, including those who fancied themselves to be so sophisticated and civilized in Europe, were hosts to bloodthirsty beasts who, once they were put in the arena in which executive power was licensed for criminal activity, were quite thorough in their removal of all evidence and witnesses, until finally they didn't have to any more?

Have we gone mad as a people or what? Can't we see what is before our own eyes? You cannot give the President the license to commit crimes. Period. He is the chief executor of the LAW. If he himself is a criminal, what respect can we have for the law? This is madness. And the fact that we even for a second contemplate it shows the depravity and degeneracy of both our intellect and our moral conscience.

Question: I have heard this many times, and maybe you will agree with it, that the United States is following the exact same path as the Roman Empire. If you look at the many situations that caused eventually the crumbling of the Roman Empire, it is almost like a repeat performance here in America.

Would you agree with that? And if it is, what game plan would you put forth to the American people to slam on the brakes?

Dr. Keyes: Before I could say "yes" to that, I would have to be clear about one thing. I believe that there are similarities, mainly because the moral culture that was needed to sustain the republic was destroyed. It was destroyed in various ways, by various influences, including, some of them, by the temptations and inclinations that resulted from the expansion of the empire. With the result that certain things developed in the course of the Roman Empire, including, of course, ultimately, Caesarism, which was the abuse of military power in order to overturn the institutions of the republic.

But that in itself was also then based upon what? It was based upon a transference of allegiance from the republic to such individuals as Caesar. And that transference of allegiance, in the end, represented, I think, the triumph of a certain kind of selfish interest and motivation over what had been the very strong commitment to the common good that, in the early days of the Roman Republic, led to those wonderful stories that you read about in the ancient histories. Including the wonderful story of . . . I think it was one of the ancestors of Brutus--I don't remember, and I haven't had lately a chance to go back and look it up--but he was in command of the Roman army, and it was going up against one of their enemies. And his son had the misfortune to be a little bit too eager to get into battle, and against the general order of the day proceeded to rush eagerly upon the enemy. This led to a general engagement, and the Romans won!

After the battle was over, the fellow who had been in charge, the general commanding, as we would say these days, brought his son up on charges because of his insubordination. And even though it was his son, and even though it had resulted in a victory for the republic, he put his son to death--because that was the requirement of the law.

That sense that, especially when you occupied a position of public responsibility, you subordinated private interest, and connection, and passion, to the interest of the integrity of the law was profoundly fundamental to the Roman Republic. When, in the days of Caesar and so forth, it was lost, the republic was inevitably doomed to fail. In that sense we see the connection between a moral foundation and the possibility of these institutions of republican government.

Now, I went through all of that by way of saying that I think we are very different from the Roman Republic. Our republic is far superior, in my opinion, to the Roman Republic. It was based on a superior understanding of justice, a superior understanding of justice that, in the end, reflected not a narrow political base, but instead a universal human principle. And drawing strength from that universal principle of justice we, I think, have a providential opportunity to have not an empire that will last a thousand years and be remembered for a long time, but to rather be a republic that sets an example of a future for mankind that could lift up the human destiny beyond the need for empire and tyranny.

But like the Romans, we have a moral culture that sustains us. One that at one and the same time frees the energy of our personal interests and connections, but requires that as individuals we accept the discipline of respect for the higher authority from which our claim to be free in those ways derives. If we lose that discipline, this republic will crumble. And in that sense I think there is a parallel in the situations of these republics.

Question: I am descended from a long line of men who have served in the military, starting with the Revolutionary War. I am the mother of a 21 year-old. And I remember when the registration notice for the draft arrived at our home, and how very sobering that was for me. I consider myself a patriot. I realize that there is always the possibility that my son will be called to war.

But I wonder if there is some assurance you can give me that our sons are safe. Because it is my understanding that Bill Clinton was sexually involved while he was discussing the possibility of sending troops into one of the troubled spots of America. And I am very, very frightened.

Dr. Keyes: I wish that everybody who is sitting in Congress could have heard what you just said. It reminds me of calls that I have been getting on the radio program. And, I know, this all becomes the subject of jokes for people on Jay Leno and stuff. We don't appreciate--do we?--that we literally break the hearts of decent people when we show no respect for decency. We literally break their hearts.

And as a people, if we are going to be asking the folks who go into harms way--as we must, you know, because societies have to defend themselves--if we put in charge of the sons and daughters of decent Americans people who show no respect for their oaths, people who show no respect for the gravity of the decisions they are involved with, what do we think is going to be the result?

And I think that it begins with the grief of a mother's heart. But, you know, it is going to end up with the justifiable resentment in the heart of the soldier so abused. Don't we see this? This is human nature.

I go into the military, right? I go into the military and through your wish and agency I am then trained to be a professional on the basis of a doctrine that says there is such a thing as honor and integrity. "We will require that you take this oath, and that you respect it--even at the cost of your life!"

We don't get that, do we? We say oaths don't matter. We say that it is of no importance. But when someone takes that oath of military service, and then stands there when he is going to DIE, and does not turn tail and run, because he refuses to break with that faith--that's serious business, isn't it?

And if we want the eighteen, and the nineteen, and the twenty year-olds on our battlefields to show respect for their oaths at the cost of their lives, surely we can demand that a President show respect for his oath, even at the cost of his sordid lusts.

Question: Yes, Dr. Keyes, I was just curious to hear your opinion on what the future may be for the use of independent counsel, and possibly the majority using that as a tool in the future to go after a President that they may not like.

Dr. Keyes: It is interesting, isn't it? The independent counsel was invented by the Democrats in order to go after Republican Presidents. And the Republicans didn't like that. But then this counsel that they had invented suddenly started to develop a mind of its own. It's like one of those machines in Star Trek. You turn it on, and then it starts to take the ship over, and you are thinking "Whoah! What did we do here?" That's the feeling I know that a lot of the Democrats have, including Elizabeth Holtzman and people like this: "Whoah! We created a monster!" "That was nothing like what I intended," she says. No, of course not. You intended him to go after Republican Presidents. "What happened to his programming?"

Well, now that he has gone after a Democrat President--and "gone after" . . . I'm not even sure I should use that word. The reason I say that is because I think what happens here, though we may not wish to admit it, is that we set things up, and that we give people a function, and then that function involves that they should, with integrity, pursue facts wherever they lead. And that relentless pursuit of the facts and the truth causes great inconvenience. I witnessed this during the Reagan years--people turning their offices inside out, memos have to be given, time has to be expended--it is a great bother. But it also can lead, if there are nasty facts to be turned up, to some real problems, as Bill Clinton has discovered. So now, suddenly, the Democrats are not all that happy with the independent counsel.

So as to the future of the independent counsel, I have a feeling that after the smoke has cleared, whatever happens to Bill Clinton, this famous word that is such in vogue now--"bipartisan"--I think they may reach a bipartisan conclusion about the independent counsel. I'm not sure, but they may. It may be one of those little things on which they find they can agree.

I'll have to tell you something, though. I was not a fan of the independent counsel law when it was put in. I do not believe that as it is presently structured it is a good idea. Why? Because I don't like investigations? No, because I believe that the responsibility for investigating abuses within the executive branch belongs to Congress, not to the executive branch. I believe that the independent counsel represents the abdication by Congress of its constitutional responsibilities to oversea malfeasance and misconduct in the executive branch. And therefore I believe that the independent counsel should not be there in its present form.

Now, if the Congress wanted to revamp it, so that that independent counsel was actually what Starr has turned out to be . . . Starr turned out to be what? He has turned out to be somebody who goes after facts and evidence that may relate to impeachable offenses, in order to present to Congress that evidence so they can perform their Constitutional function. Hidden away in the independent counsel law was a true and necessary function, if and when there is suspicion of impeachable offenses. Somebody has to go look. I do not believe, however, that one can trust the executive branch to make decisions about who, what and when. And I don't know why they did.

So in that sense I think there will be a bipartisan sense that we should do away with this. If we think of it as a people, this bipartisanship will be another example of the two parties coming together against our best interest. It is not in our best interest for them to combine in order to create a free-for-all for executive malfeasance. If on the other hand they replace the law with something which tries to codify, in present, modern terms, an ability on the part of Congress to keep tabs on, and seriously to pursue, evidence of impeachable offenses in the executive branch when they arise, then I think it is necessary.

But I think we need to put Congress and its responsibility back in the center of this whole concept. It is not for the executive branch to police the executive branch. It is for Congress to do so. They must revamp themselves and the institution so they have the institutional stomach to take it on. And we, I believe, must do our best to try to revamp the moral environment, so that they will have the moral courage to do their constitutional duty.

Question: (A lengthy attempt to state a four-point proposal for punishing Clinton was cut off by the moderator.)

Dr. Keyes: Let me just do two quick things in response. First, I sympathize with those folks who are looking for some way to deal with this situation, on the assumption that he is impeached and the Senate does not remove him. Because it is kind of burdensome, isn't it, to think of such an unfit character remaining in office for two years under the cloud of this whole business. If he had any decency, of course, at that point he would resign. But if he had any decency we wouldn't be going through this now. So we can put that thought aside--the premise of his decency having been already, I think, refuted.

But then there is the question about the Senate, and that is the one I wanted to take up. Because I am not sure I make the easy assumption that once the articles of impeachment are passed the Senate will simply vote along party lines and the impeachment will fail. I'm not sure I make that assumption. Why?

Well, one, because in terms of the facts there are some cogent arguments to be made here, and I think that there are senators on both sides of the aisle who have been reserved in their willingness to speak about this, precisely because they are unwilling to make a judgment in advance of the facts. This is laudable.

I also think we should remember--and I want to point this out, because nobody else is pointing it out, and because it needs to be kept in mind by all concerned: the people, the folks in the Senate, the Republican leadership, everybody. In the Constitution of the United States, when they describe this whole situation with the Senate, the Founders do something that I think is kind of peculiar. For this vote of impeachment they have a clause that isn't there for anything else. You elect the senators, they go in, they take an oath, and then they cast their votes and votes and votes. And in all the votes, that oath that they take at the beginning is sufficient, because as a body they stand collectively responsible for the results of the voting.

With respect to the issue of impeachment, the Founders put in a clause that I think we need to think hard about. They said that "when sitting for purposes of impeachment, they shall be on oath or affirmation." Do any of you know what that means? What that implies? I'm not absolutely sure I do. I do know this, though. It reminds us of how seriously the Founders took the whole question of the sanctity of oaths, because the integrity of the impeachment vote was to be sealed by a special oath that is taken by the senators as to the integrity of the vote they will cast on that specific vote.

But just for suggestion purposes, and for thought, I would say the following: It also means that unlike any other vote that they cast, this is a vote for which each individual senator can be held personally accountable. And if the vote is cast without integrity, under the influence of any form or semblance of political corruption or influence of the wrong kind, they have foresworn their oath, which is an act that, under ordinary circumstances, disqualifies one from public office.

We need to think through the implications of that. Because people are acting as if the minority in the Senate--the blocking third--can simply do whatever it wants, under whatever corrupt influence it pleases. If the senators, in that vote, are on oath or affirmation this is not entirely so. Since if it can be shown that any individual senator acted without integrity, I think it would be up to a majority, aiming to protect the integrity of the body, to determine what action they should take. And that action, as I understand it, would be taken by majority vote.

I think the Founders were very shrewd in the way they put the Constitution together, and that in fact every individual senator stands in the shadow of potential accountability if they act without integrity when it comes to deciding the guilt or innocence of a President before them for impeachment.

They may have a blocking third, but I think the majority still has an ability to hold them accountable.

Question: If the President of the United States is here to lead our country, first off, isn't this entire impeachment process taking up a lot of time? Is he leading our country, thoroughly? Second off, how much money has this taken? How much time, money and effort has all this taken, and what could we do with that time, that energy, and that money?

You refer to the moral fiber of the country. If we spent somewhere around 46 million dollars on the Starr report, what could we have done with that money? If moral fiber is caused in part by education, a man like myself that couldn't necessarily afford a college education--I'll take that 46 million. I'll go to college. Just give me a little. Give me a chance.

What should we do with this money? How much time are we going to waste? How long do the American people have to stand around and watch and debate and see CNN day in and day out, before we see, "I've had enough. I don't care anymore. Throw him out; keep him in. Whichever you want to do. But I don't want to talk about it anymore. The guy did it. We all know that. What are we gonna do about it? Just like business." Thank you.

Dr. Keyes: Thank YOU.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could have 435 common-sensical people like that sitting up on the hill right now? I think this would have been over with long ago. "The guy did it! There's nothing left to talk about! Throw him out; keep him in . . . "

But, you see, unfortunately politics makes things more complicated than that. And as a result we have a bunch of folks whom I have likened to the Mafia lawyers that go in to defend the gangsters in court. This has been the role of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. There are standard tactics you follow when you know your client is guilty, and they have followed them all. And to some extent, I suppose, they win plaudits for this. This is part of why the process is being dragged out.

But I think you are right. To me--and I have said it for months and months and months--two things are true. One, we wouldn't have had to go through any of this if Bill Clinton had told the truth in the first place. I don't know, myself, what the consequences would have been. Apparently Dick Morris told him he would get in trouble. Judging by the results, he would have been more advised to follow Dick Morris's history than to follow his advice. Since obviously Dick Morris got caught, and I don't notice that it did him much harm--I mean, he seems to be more in vogue these days than ever.

If he had taken that as a barometer of the corruption, or at least the tolerance, of the American people, then he would have come forward, 'fessed up, and in all likelihood he would have then gone about his business. Instead he decided to lie about it. What a lot of us miss, I think, is that when he decided to lie about it, do you know what he admitted? He admitted that he had wronged the public and had to hide what he had done from them.

It reminds me of Adam in the Garden of Eden. And the Lord comes along and He says, "Adam, where are you?" And Adam says "I'm over here, and I'm naked and I'm scared." God says, "Who told you you were naked?" I would ask that of Bill Clinton. "Bill Clinton, who told you you were guilty?" See, his own conscience told him that.

And it seems to me that all the Democrats who are sacrificing the moral heart and principles of their party . . . . And believe me, you look upon me and you say, "You are a Republican and you are a conservative; what do you care about that?" I care deeply about that.

I don't know if you will understand this, when I say it. But I grew up in the 1960's. You can have this side or that of the American political spectrum. You can stand on the Republican side or the Democrat side. But I think that if you look back on the history of this country in the sixties, you will see some moments of noble importance in our American life. And in some of those moments you will find, standing for justice, standing for principle, standing with sincere hearts for the need for this country to do right by those whom it oppressed, people who wore the Democrat label with integrity, and who stood for principles that did not accept lawlessness, that did not accept the view that violations of conscience should be tolerated because of the majority's will.

And I may, in the course of my life, have parted company with the Democrat Party on some policies and issues, and I wear a Republican label--but I stood on common ground with that conscience. I stood on common ground with those men of integrity I grew up to revere and respect because of the courage they showed in the fight for justice.

It is wrong to watch these leaders now sacrificing the moral heritage of this great party to an idol of self-obsessed ambition. And they should stop. This country deserves two great parties. We may disagree with one another over issues and policies, but we should agree on the integrity that is required for government, on the sanctity of oaths, on the respect that we owe to our men and women in uniform, on the respect that we owe to our heritage of moral discipline which sustains our freedom. On this there should be no party. On this there should be no disagreement.

If we can find that common ground again, we will not only find it easy to decide about Bill Clinton. I think we may find it easier than we think to join hands across the barriers of party and move into a 21st century that fulfills this nation's promise.

Thank you.