Alan Keyes, hypocrisy and politics

When Hillary was running for Senate in New York, Keyes rightly criticized her saying

I deeply resent the destruction of federalism represented by Hillary Clinton's willingness to go into a state she doesn't even live in and pretend to represent people there, so I certainly wouldn't imitate it. (Reportedly saying this to Pat Buchanan on Fox News in 2000)

Now he is running for Senate in Illinois even though he is from Maryland. This is hypocrisy. Speaker Hastert (IL) told Tim Russert that he had been looking for five weeks to find a candidate from Illinois who could challenge Obama to no avail. He has even asked Ditka. The argument is that it takes millions of dollars to build name recognition (Obama is riding on a wave of fame from the Democratic Convention) and Keyes already has it.

I suppose, from the point of view of the Republican Party, you have to do what it takes to win. However, this is one of the major problems with liberal thinking -- ends justify means. Conservative philosophy should deny this sort of reasoning favoring instead principled argument.

So, the question is, was Keyes right to criticize Hillary? In order to escape hypocrisy he must explain his position then and now and resolve the conflict. Is it permissible to represent a state in the US Senate without having lived there? I do not have a well considered opinion. However, I also criticize Hilary for her blatant pandering and ambition. Specifically, I criticize her for her lack of principle. Like any good citizen, I am willing to be convinced. But, until then I must criticize Keyes for this hypocrisy.

Of course, we still have to deal with the lesser of two evils argument. Politics is, after all, pragmatic. When you vote, you are not saying that you agree with everything your candidate stands for. You are saying that you want him to win more than the other guys. This is certainly the case with Keyes -- not to mentions the strategic need to keep Senate control in the hands of Republicans.