Ben Carson’s White House: Which Doctor Will Be In?

Alan Keyes Former Assistant Secretary of State
Font Size:

Because I am black, was a Republican, and mounted campaigns for the GOP nomination for President, people have been asking me about Ben Carson ever since the “Great Mentioner” first began whispering his name, as a possible candidate for President, into the ears of the elitist faction’s propagandists. Many of them are fellow moral conservatives, deeply concerned with America’s abandonment of God-endowed unalienable right on issues like abortion and gay marriage. They told me how impressed they were with a speech he gave to the National Prayer Breakfast.

I knew about and admired Dr. Carson’s career as a surgeon. I have to say, however, that I didn’t share their enthusiasm for his Prayer Breakfast speech. In terms of America’s life-threatening crisis of moral principle, I found the speech unremarkable. It read as a statement of personal feelings that took little or no account of the logic and substance of the principles vital to America’s identity as a nation. Later, he wrote an article in which he sought to justify his endorsement of a pro-abortion candidate for U.S. Senate in Oregon that gave strong evidence that this deficiency wasn’t mere happenstance. This was confirmed again when he took the view that the U.S. Supreme Court’s plainly anti-Constitutional decision on homosexual marriage, in the Obergefell case, had now to be enforced as “the law of the land.”

People inclined to support Dr. Carson’s presidential bid disagreed with the articles in which I examined this evidence. I concluded that Dr. Carson’s views are inconsistent with those of people like myself, who strive to be faithful proponents of the God-endowed rights and rightful liberty we Americans are supposed to respect, as individuals and as a nation. Since they could not argue with the facts I presented, they pointed to the sincerity of Dr. Carson’s Christian witness. They suggested that, at worst, he suffered from being poorly instructed about these vital matters. They encouraged me to seek opportunities to help him in that regard, instead of raising doubts about his candidacy.

I find it difficult to assume that people aren’t as capable of grasping the quite evident common sense of America’ founding creed as I am. That’s why I never “talk down” to audiences in the speeches I give about our ongoing crisis. I especially find it repellant to suggest that I should assume ignorance when the person in question has more than proven his intelligence and abilities, in a profession that consistently demands both to an extraordinary degree. I assume that Dr. Carson never performed surgery without thoroughly preparing himself for the life and death responsibilities it involved for his individual patients. So I have to assume he has not offered himself for the responsibilities of the presidency, which encompass life and death issues for the nation, without due study and preparation.

So when I ponder and write about Ben Carson’s views, I take them seriously as a reflection of the true character of his thinking.  I assume that they embody conclusions he has reached as a citizen, who approaches duties with the same conscientious disposition that made him a great surgeon. Now, like many other proponents of the moral premises of America’s founding, I read recent reports that during his 15 years of service “on the boards of retailer Costco Wholesale and food manufacturer Kellogg … Carson supported various initiatives at both companies” aimed at accommodating the demands of homosexual activists. “Because of such changes the companies now are ranked as some of the best in the United States by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocates.”

Dr. Carson has, as they say, “talked a good game” with respect to the issue of moral principle, amassing a core of support from moral patriots in the GOP. They seem content to buy into the notion that, because he is a newcomer to electoral politics, he has no record on the key issues that will determine the fate of our constitutional government. Despite the evidence I referred to above, they persist in giving him “the benefit of the doubt,” relying on the possibility that his inconsistencies as a candidate do not reflect the underlying character of his views.

But in the rhetorical posture he has taken as a candidate he clearly aims to establish himself as someone who will articulate and apply the moral principles that are at the heart of the battle to defend the God-endowed unalienable rights of human offspring in the womb, and of the natural family as endowed by the Creator, to nurture and bring them up.   

But this outspoken courage seems newly minted for political purposes when placed in the context of 15 years during which he supported the adoption of policies that disrespect those principles. He helped to build the corporate culture now primed to be an instrument of workplace persecution against people of Christian faith. They are liable to be deprived of their livelihood unless they abjure the respect for God-endowed right that their faith and America’s founding principles require. They are liable to be penalized and “re-educated” even though the Constitution plainly and explicitly recognizes and protects their convictions rom disparagement, as a matter of antecedent civil and natural rights.

To defend himself, Dr. Carson is resorting to responses that rely on the false notion that it is naturally right and Constitutional to equate so called “rights” derived from human whim and selfish passion with the God-endowed rights that reflect the standard of justice, transcending human will. But this transcendent standard is the basis for the constitutional self-government of the America people as a whole. If humanly fabricated “rights” for homosexuals trump the God endowed unalienable rights of the natural family, than the government fabricated “right” to income equality, environmental purity and a world free of all privately owned arms trump the natural rights of property ownership and use essential to individual liberty and political consent.

Carson’s long service as a corporate chieftain, committed to implementing the agenda of government fabricated “rights” means that his preference for pragmatism over principle in the endorsement of Monica Wehby, and his ready acceptance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s anti-constitutional opinion in Obergefell were not aberrations. They are consistent with his true character. He may be a newcomer to electoral politics. But like Donald Trump, in the board rooms of the elitist faction corporate culture that is now pushing hard for the demise of America’s rightful liberty, he is an insider from way back. Whatever he says to gull moral patriots out of their votes, he has “made his bones” as a corporate player.

The only question is: Which is he more likely to betray — his fellow travelers in the elitist culture that rejects and despises the premises of America’s founding, or the words he now speaks in a context of political expediency? It is a question that promises a treacherous result no different than that which has already become commonplace in the Republican Party, which he had no interest in joining until that pattern of treachery was clear. Ironic that one who has worked in the corporate vineyards of elitist faction treachery may win the position from which to consummate that work, on the strength of votes from the very people who sincerely claim to reject the poisonous fruit those vineyards intend.