BOSTON — No one can say that I don’t vote my conscience, polls
be damned. Twice I have cast Republican primary ballots for Alan
Keyes, undeterred when the results rolled in showing more than 97
percent of the vote going against me each time.
Whenever I would travel to Maryland to visit relatives, I would
religiously listen to Keyes’ radio talk show “America’s Wake-Up
Call.” From the beginning, when he would shout “Wake uuuuup
America: it’s later than you think,” to the very end I would sit
transfixed as the former Reagan appointee effortlessly moved back
and forth from detailed discussions of the nation’s founding
documents to the day’s current events.
Alan Keyes isn’t everybody’s bag, even on the right, but I
confess that I’ve always liked him. Anyone who can mix it up as
passionately and intelligently on issues to dear to my heart like
padlocking the IRS and protecting the unborn is okay in my
book.
Given this history, I suppose I should be ecstatic that the
Illinois Republican Party has offered Keyes its nomination to the
U.S. Senate. And after the roller-coaster ride Illinois Republicans
have been on with prospects ranging from Jack Ryan to Mike Ditka, I
can understand why they would want to get this candidate selection
over with. Yet I find myself hoping that Keyes nevertheless spurns
their entreaties to run.
It’s not so much because it makes conservatives look at least
mildly ridiculous to have become apoplectic over Hillary Clinton
running for Senate in a state she never lived in, only to recruit a
guy who lives in Maryland for the GOP slot in Illinois when it’s
convenient. At least Elizabeth Dole lived in North Carolina at some
point in her life.
AS HE DOES SO OFTEN, however, Keyes said it best when asked what he
thought about the idea of running for Senate in a state where he’s
never lived: “As a matter of principle, I don’t think it’s a good
idea.” And considering that he takes the Senate’s role as a
guardian of state prerogatives in our federal system seriously
enough to favor the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which forced the
direct election of senators, it is hard to see how this would be
“consonant with federalism” as Keyes understands it — one of his
criteria for accepting the nod. But partisanship has produced
greater inconsistencies and it can be said that Jim Buckley was a
solid conservative senator for New York even though he was actually
from Connecticut.
Nor is it so much an issue that Keyes’ past history of Senate
bids in a state where he actually lived doesn’t bode well for his
chances this time, although that’s true too. When Sen. Paul
Sarbanes’ (D-MD) 1988 Republican challenger dropped out, Keyes
stepped into the breach. Despite public support from the Gipper
himself and a campaign managed by former Harvard roomie Bill
Kristol, the conservative firebrand won just 38 percent of the
vote. He tried again in 1992, taking on uberliberal Sen. Barbara
Mikulski. There was a dustup over the appropriateness of Keyes
paying himself a salary out of his campaign funds and he ended up
drawing just 29 percent of the vote.
If I recall correctly, the carpetbagger charge came up in those
elections, too. Despite the fact that Keyes lived in Maryland, he
had only moved there while serving in government.
BUT THE MAIN REASON I WOULD like to see Keyes tell his Chicago
recruiters to take a long walk off something short is that they
don’t seem to have the right motives for approaching him to be the
candidate. A national search could have discovered a candidate with
a better record of winning elections. Race seems to have been a
factor. Is it a coincidence that Andrea Grubb Barthwell, the other
finalist for the nomination, was also African-American?
State Sen. Dave Syverson of Rockford, a member of the panel that
made the offer to Keyes, insists that it is. “It just turned out to
be that way,” he told the Chicago Sun-Times. “We don’t
look at color the way the Democrats do.” Maybe so, but you don’t
have to be a thoroughgoing cynic to wonder if the Illinois GOP was
thinking: “The Democrats have an articulate, Harvard-educated black
candidate who gives great speeches. We need an articulate,
Harvard-educated black candidate who gives great speeches.”
Sadly, it has become a staple of GOP politicking to preach
color-blindness in theory while aping the Democrats’ approach to
racial preferences in practice. Keyes has long opposed such
policies at great personal price, often being attacked by
mean-spirited critics who challenge his racial authenticity —
barbs white conservatives like me never have to endure when taking
the same positions.
Certainly, a race between Keyes and Barack Obama would be
exciting. It would result in the best Senate candidate debates
Illinoisans have seen since, say, Lincoln-Douglas (recall, however,
that the Democrats won that race). But hopefully while
deliberating, Keyes contemplates whether he was extended this offer
for the right reason.
These suspicions are not a reflection on Keyes’ talents and
intellect, which I have long admired. Consider that Thomas Sowell,
one of the greatest public intellectuals in America today, was once
offered a job in the Reagan administration. The transition team
recruiter made the mistake of trying to sell the position by noting
that Sowell would be the first black appointed to Reagan’s Cabinet.
According to the story, Sowell promptly hung up the phone.
