Will Keyes bolt the GOP?

According to John Lofton of The American View, he will:

After 20 or so years of working within the GOP to try and reform it into a more Christian/conservative Party, Dr. Alan Keyes is leaving the Republican Party. He will soon make this announcement and explain why he can no longer, in good conscience, remain a Republican.

That was Thursday.

As of an appearance/speech Friday, however, the St. Cloud [Minnesota] Times still identifies Keyes as a “current Republican Party presidential candidate.”

Speculation abounds that Keyes will seek the the Constitution Party’s presidential nomination—but with that party’s national convention only a little more than a month over the horizon, inquiring minds are quickly becoming impatient—or maybe even dismissive—minds.

24 Responses to “Will Keyes bolt the GOP?”

  1. Trent Hill Says:

    Keyes also addressed the LA Constitution Party convention today,and spoke approvingly of the party. He stated, in no uncertain terms, that his relationship with the GOP is coming to an end,but said he wasnt sure where that left him.

    One thing is clear, if he joins the CP and LOSES the presidential nomination—-I dont think he’ll stay with the party. (unless Moore seeks and wins it)

  2. David Says:

    even accepting what John says in that column as true - which I do agree with most of what he says in that column - Alan Keyes is definately not the answer - look at his past campaigns - he is not a man of principal but a political profiteer just like McCain and Bush

  3. Trent Hill Says:

    Im not going to agree with David about Mr. Keyes personal character—but he is pro-interventionist.

  4. Red Phillips Says:

    There are many, many problems with Keyes that should make him unacceptable to the CP. Pro-Iraq War, pro-intervention, pro-Lincoln and his Straussian neocon leanings. If the CP nominates him it will be a disaster.

    That said, in reading some things Keyes has written in order to back up my accusation that he is a Straussian, I did note a few chinks in his Straussian armor. He still falls back on his Straussianism and cites the Declaration mantra like, but if Lofton is not putting words in Keyes’ mouth (he may be.) what he expressed in the linked article is arguably a partial “Christian Worldview” concept that is fundamentally at odds with universalist Straussianism. I do think Keyes is a sincere Catholic, and I think he finds it difficult to entirely reconcile his Christianity with his Straussian babble. As any authentic Christian should. I hope Keyes can evolve into more of a “Christian Worldview” thinker.

    “Alan believes Christians should hold up a Christian plumbline as a measuring standard and make this Godly standard known. He believes the Christian faith of Christians should determine their political judgments. He believes it is a lie to say, in a Godly universe, that we are ever in a position where we must choose evil!…Christians must have Christ’s priorities - to seek first the Kingdom of God.”

    If Lofton is not putting words in Keyes’ mouth above, then Keyes is being a bad Straussian here. Progress?

    Trent, e-mail me, and I will fill you in on the juicy details of the Georgia CP convention.

  5. Michael Says:

    Who else do you have who is 1) Willing to run? 2) Ready today? 3) Is known nationally? and 4) Has a campaign ready in place?

  6. Phil Sawyer Says:

    ... and “ready to lead on day one”?

    However, ready to bolt might be more the question at this point!

  7. G.E. Says:

    Question for the Theists: If the Pope or the Vatican says that global warming is real and manmade, and that emitting carbon is a new deadly sin (i.e. the George Phillies position), then can someone be a “good Catholic” and hold the opposite (and correct) views?

  8. Trent Hill Says:

    GE,

    Unless the Pope makes a papal decree (i.e. while sitting on the throne and such), it’s not official church codtrine.

  9. Fred C. Says:

    GE: Yes. The Pope really doesn’t have as much sway as an outsider might gather from the infallibility label. Pretty all much all he can do is define what’s already going around informally, and only within the spheres of dogma & morality.

    The Apostles took no stance on climate change, and if the Pope were to attempt to make it binding he’d go down as an anti-pope and innovator. Popes can be (and all too often are) wrong on politics and current affairs. Usually, these errors are contrary to established Catholic streams of thought, such as the last pope’s stance on gun control.

    That whole new deadly sins thing got blown out of proportion a few days ago. Half the list wasn’t new, some aren’t even really sins in the proper sense but just vague social opinions. The guy that proclaimed them is a nobody in real terms - it’s his area of expertise, but not one he has any authority over.

    I say all this as a Catholic in good standing, confident that lightning’s not going to retaliate against me for making this post (though clouds are gathering, creepy…)

  10. matt Says:

    I don’t know how Alan Keyes can have an “authentic Christian worldview”, especially as a Catholic, without adhering to Just War Theory.

  11. Paulie Says:

    “Alan believes Christians should hold up a Christian plumbline as a measuring standard and make this Godly standard known. He believes the Christian faith of Christians should determine their political judgments.

    Oh? What sin was Lucifer cast out of heaven for?

    How is it that Lucifer was able to genuinely tempt Jesus, who would have been in a position to know if the offer was genuine, with power over all the kingdoms of the world?

    What does “My Kingdom is not of this world” mean to you?

    What is your opinion of the meaning of Matthew 6?

    More:

    http://praxeology.net/anarchist-jesus.pdf

    Please read and digest before responding.

    Trent to GE:

    Unless the Pope makes a papal decree (i.e. while sitting on the throne and such), it’s not official church codtrine.

    Sidestep. What if he does make it a papal decree?

    He believes it is a lie to say, in a Godly universe, that we are ever in a position where we must choose evil!…Christians must have Christ’s priorities - to seek first the Kingdom of God.”

  12. Fred C. Says:

    “Sidestep. What if he does make it a papal decree?”

    He invalidates himself for being a social engineer instead of a pope.

  13. Paulie Says:

    Let’s see how well I remember my recent Popes.

    Paul VI was called a social engineer for Vatican II, and a minority of (are they or are they not?) Catholics never reconciled themselves with those changes.

    Or was it his predecessor?

    John Paul II may have flirted with liberation theology just a tiny smidgeon, but his anti-communism kept him from going all the way,

    Pius X was certainly no social engineer, but some have accused him of being a bit too friendly to the social engineers in Germany and Italy back then.

    Benedict XVI, back when he was Jospeph Ratzinger, was once a member in Hitler Jugend (youth)

    That’s as far as my memory extends, now I’ll cheat.

    (which is mandatory but avoided by 10-20%), albeit reportedly an unenthusiastic one, and the son of a Bavarian police officer who was not a nazi. It would be unfair to assume Ratzinger is in any way a nazi, but perhaps subconsciously just a small bit of their brainwashing stuck.

    Ratzinger was also a teenage draftee in the German nazi military.

    His brother is also a priest, and his siter never married.

    As a Cardinal, Ratzinger was promoted to head an office which was once in charge of the inquisition.

    He was a vigorous defender of some social conservative traditions against modernism, on issues such as birth control.

    He issued a letter that details of “Church investigations into accusations made against priests of certain serious ecclesiastical crimes, including sexual abuse, were subject to the pontifical secret and could not, on pain of excommunication, be revealed.”

    He has had a couple of strokes.

    He is over 80, has a heart condition and bronchitis.

    He believes the church suffers from a dictatorship of relativism.

    He has sought to reconcile the breach with Anti-Vatican II reform Catholics.

    He has condemned protestant churches as not being true churches, and condemned consumerism, especially among youth.

    He has also ticked off (Eastern) Orthox Christians by removing “Bishop of the West” from among is official titles. In Former USSR Catholics have been accused of prosletyzing among the Orthodox.

    “Pope Benedict XVI’s meeting with a Polish priest who has been accused of making anti-Jewish comments has shocked Jewish groups.”

    OF Islam he has said “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,”

    He declined to meet with the Dalai Lama.

    He said native peoples were “silently longing” for the Christian faith brought by colnialism.

    He has revived papal garments that had fallen out of favor since the 1960s.

    He’ll make his first Papal US trip next month IN DC and NY,

  14. matt Says:

    Paulie:

    I think Benedict’s analysis of Islam was fair. It added to the Judeo-Christian concept very little, and basically only removed the doctrines of the trinity and the incarnation. Without those two things, you have a version of Christianity that doesn’t have it’s anti-authoritarian focus, and that was one of the things that made Christianity great. The idea that the spiritual could speak against the secular didn’t exist in pre-Judeo-Christian religion, and that idea gave us separation of Church and State.

    Islam, by removing the deity of the man who spoke against the state (Jesus), and minimizing his anti-state comments, left it’s followers with a united spiritual and temporal power structure that was free to kill at will and invade to spread it’s influence.

    Of course, Christians have had this same outlook at times, but it isn’t fundamental to them, because they have a model of an anti-state prophet, who they (we) believe is the very Son of God. That didn’t prevent the crusades or the Gary North’s from existing, but it did make them the exception rather than the rule.

  15. matt Says:

    Also: If Christianity is true, and I believe it is, it makes perfect sense to think that the native people were silently longing for it, just as we all inherently tend to seek truth. Now if he’d have said that they were silently longing to be enslaved by Catholic priests and the armies that accompanied them, that would have been a different matter.

  16. Fred C. Says:

    There’s quite the laundry list of material there. I wonder if you were going to get to a point with it before the comment cut off. Since you mentioned Paul VI being called a social engineer, I’ll address that.

    For the most part, the changes that followed Vatican 2 were extreme and somewhat disingenuous in light of the actual council and its work. The Church underwent massive sweeping changes riding a tide of emotion, and many got carried away. Yes, even Paul VI’s hands were dirty here. The present Pope is sorting through that mess and trying to heal the wounds the Church suffered in that process. I can’t speak to the size of any particular tendency, but there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence that church attendance dropped off steeply (and continues to drop) starting around that time.

    As for the rest, I don’t really see where you were trying to go. Yes, these were actions taken by the Pope, some before his pontificate. None carried the weight of authority to compel other catholics to a certain belief or challenge their standing as members of the church, nor could most of them since they’re just things the guy did rather than an attempt to formulate doctrine. A pope is still susceptible to bad speech-writing, lack of forethought, shoddy diplomacy, and generally making bad calls. Some popes are downright evil if you go back a few centuries. No one’s questioning their humanity, and if one does that’s not a Catholic, that’s a strange and foreign sort of cultist.

  17. Fred C. Says:

    Wow. Well said matt.

    Of course, there are some subtle signs of an anti-state current underlying the Old Testament as well. God’s strong anti-government warning in 1 Samuel 8 comes to mind.

  18. Red Phillips Says:

    I don’t know how Alan Keyes can have an “authentic Christian worldview”, especially as a Catholic, without adhering to Just War Theory.

    Excellent point Matt.

  19. matt Says:

    My favorite anti-government passage in the Bible is the parable of the bramble in Judges 9.

    It points out that people who make the pursuit of political power the primary focus of their lives tend to be what Ayn Rand would have called “second-raters”.

  20. Paulie Says:

    matt,

    OK, you make a good point in a way.

    I’m afraid that I am not an expert on Islam. Honestly, I know more about Christianity, Judaism, the Eastern religions, pagan and shamanic faiths - but I know a little.

    Like the rest of them, Islam is what you make of it.

    One theory I like is that Islam is evolving just as Christianity has.

    In Islam, it is the year 1400-something. If we are to judge Christianity based on the actions of its self-styled followers in the 1400s what would we say about it?

    And Islam is certainly not monolithic. Sufism and Radical Wahabism are not too alike. The Muslim people of the Balkans are not of the same beliefs
    as those of Indonesia or those of Uzbekistan or of Somalia.

    I think you make an excellent point of the value of Christian anti-authoritarianism. But can that point apply in any way to the RCC, a hierarchical, top-down organization with one man at the head?

    (I realize you are not Catholic).

    We are supposed to take it on faith that, in certain select moments only, he becomes more than a mere man but is an infallible ambassador of God.

    Past performance does not lead much credence to this article of faith.

    You also make an excellent point about Judges, which I have often made myself.

    If Christianity is true, and I believe it is, it makes perfect sense to think that the native people were silently longing for it, just as we all inherently tend to seek truth. Now if he’d have said that they were silently longing to be enslaved by Catholic priests and the armies that accompanied them, that would have been a different matter.

    Given historical reality, it is hard to say one without implying the other, unless it is made explicit.

    Were Africans secretly longing for slavery so they could be “Christianized”?

    Christianity, properly understood, may well be true. But I think it is very rarely properly understood among its alleged adherents.

    As far as I can tell, you are far better in sticking to true Christianity than most of them.

  21. Paulie Says:

    Since some of you are noted theologists, take a stab at the first part of

    http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/03/15/will-keyes-bolt-the-gop/#comment-537674

  22. Fred C. Says:

    “I think you make an excellent point of the value of Christian anti-authoritarianism. But can that point apply in any way to the RCC, a hierarchical, top-down organization with one man at the head?”

    It’s a bit of a paradox. But it’s tought picking out some bits of Christianity we might like and others we don’t. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, yet St. Peter was given the keys to it. Can we really take one of these statements at face value while ignoring the other? Even from the same Gospel?

    Christ and the Apostles both recognized that the one should deal with the state in a manner that does not cause unecessary trouble. The church, right from the top down, has practiced this throughout its history, tolerating and even interacting with any state that allows it to go relatively undisturbed. When this principle was ignored by either side - disaster tends to strike.

    “We are supposed to take it on faith that, in certain select moments only, he becomes more than a mere man but is an infallible ambassador of God.

    Past performance does not lead much credence to this article of faith.”

    I’m sorry you took the Immaculate Conception and Assumption so hard. Meanwhile, the narrowly defined parameters of infallibility don’t leave much room for the Pope actually going out and doing something retarded, or even very radical. Looking closely, most popes go with the times. What more can we expect from mere men?

  23. matt Says:

    Paulie,
    Thank you for your kind words. When Christians talk about faith with non-theists, I find that they frequently make the mistake of stressing the obviousness and logical coherence of the faith. These things are there, but they are visible only from the inside, that is to believers. What is visible on both the inside and the outside are the severe difficulties of faith, although these difficulties can be overcome without sacrificing logical coherence. As a side note, I’ve found it to have been worth it.

    Regarding the authoritarianism of the RCC, I also find that to be problematic, since I don’t think the Bible or the Church’s early tradition truly call for it. What I will say in it’s defense is that it is less top-down than it appears. The concept of one man speaking for God in a unique, infallible way is problematic, but it would be more problematic if that man weren’t democratically elected by an international, religiously diverse group of his peers, and even moreso if he had an army at his command.

    My (political) problem with Islam is that I don’t see any mechanism of reform within it that will lead away from authoritarianism. Christianity in the 1400’s was in many ways dreadful, but it contained schismatic groups who were willing to die, and often submit to death nonviolently, rather than align with the power structure in the area. Islam has many who are willing to die, but few who are willing not to kill. That’s a problem because defenseless martyrdom is one of the great change agents of history.

  24. Old Whig Says:

    The RCC is not the only tradition. The Orthodox Church is equally old and has the same origin. Yet the OC is only partially heirarchical and very (perhaps too) decentralized. No one person or institution is infallible, only the Church as a whole.

    Even an Ecumenical Council can fail. For example the Council of Florence in the 15th century, which failed despite the support of the heirarchy and the Byzantine Imperial Government. Even with a Turkish invasion on the horizon, the lay people rose up and rejected union with Rome.

    Oh well, I’m way off topic and beginning to preach, always a bad sign. Guess I’ll go take my meds and lie down.

    O.W.

Leave a Reply