Topic: Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin: A candidate for libertarians? For decades we've been searching for someone who is both acceptable and electable. Sarah Palin just may be the one.by Phil Manger
(libertarian)
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
After decades of being forced to choose between voting for the lesser of two evils or wasting our votes on someone whose chance of winning was considerably less than that of the proverbial snowball in Hell, we libertarians — at long last — may have found in former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin a Presidential candidate who is both acceptable and electable.
Now, to all you PDS*-sufferers out there: before you go jumping down to the Comments section to tell me how stupid and unlibertarian I am for even suggesting this, you had better hear me out. The first thing you should notice is that I used the word "may". There are a few caveats, and I will get to them shortly.
Earlier today Palin gave her long-awaited speech to a group of investors, analysts, bankers and fund-managers attending a Hong Kong conference sponsored by CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets (the "CLSA" stands for "Credit Lyonnais Securities Asia"). By all accounts — even The New York Times' — her speech was a huge hit. And, according to people in attendance, she clearly knew what she was talking about.
"A number of people who heard the speech in a packed hotel ballroom, which was closed to the media, said Mrs. Palin spoke from notes for 90 minutes and that she was articulate, well-prepared and even compelling," said the Times report.
"She didn't sound at all like a far-right-wing conservative,", Doug A. Coulter of LGT Capital Partners told the Times. "She seemed to be positioning herself as a libertarian or a small-c conservative."
Especially interesting for libertarians is her analysis of how we got into our current financial crisis. No transcript of the speech was available, but The Wall Street Journal transcribed part of it from a tape-recording made by one of the attendees:
Lack of government wasn't the problem, government policies were the problem. The marketplace didn't fail. It became exactly as common sense would expect it to. The government ordered the loosening of lending standards. The Federal Reserve kept interest rates low. The government forced lending institutions to give loans to people who, as I say, couldn't afford them. Speculators spotted new investment vehicles, jumped on board and rating agencies underestimated risks. So many to be blamed on so many different levels, but the fact remains that these people were responding to a market situation created by government policies that ran contrary to common sense.
Ron Paul could not have said it better.
Palin's speech was intended to give investors in Asian markets an insight into the views of "someone from Main Street, U.S.A.", as she put it, and dealt mostly with Federal bailouts and ballooning budget deficits.
Of course, one speech does not a President — or a libertarian — make. However, there are a number of compelling reasons why libertarians should seriously consider her as a candidate:
She resonates with Middle Americans. I have talked about this in the past. Libertarian candidates have never done very well with the Republican "base", the so-called "values voters" who often decide who gets the GOP Presidential nomination and who are essential to the election of the Republican Presidential candidate. Palin does.
She is libertarian on the issues that matter most. She is for smaller government, less regulation and lower taxes. Furthermore, she was governor of a state that, in matters of taxation, comes closest to the Libertarian ideal. Alaska has no income or sales taxes, relying instead on taxes on land and resource extraction — in effect, a Georgist tax regime.
People pay attention to what she says. Last month, with just two words — "death panels" — on her Facebook page, Palin changed the terms of the debate on health care reform. She did this even though the establishment media, which apparently never bothered to read her original post (which was about rationing, not end-of-life counseling), misreported what she said. If the Federal takeover of health care is defeated, she will deserve a large share of the credit.
Palin is a true "Teflon candidate". No matter how much mud the media slings at her, none of it sticks. In fact, with each attack she just becomes stronger. I cannot recall a candidate in my lifetime — not even Ronald Reagan — of which this could be said.
Ron Paul is not available. His views have been more consistently libertarian than Palin's, but he will be 77 years old on January 20, 2013. Furthermore, although his knowledge of the issues is stronger, he lacks Palin's charisma and political instincts.
I'm not the only one who sees Sarah Palin as a worthy successor to Ron Paul. The Wall Street Journal, in the report referenced above, noticed the similarities in their views. Bernie Quigley, writing in The Hill's Pundit's Blog, says, "Sarah Palin and Ron Paul bear kinship.". And two years ago, a poster to The Daily Paul website said Palin would make a good running mate for Dr. Paul.
To be sure, these views apparently aren't shared by The Man Himself. In an interview in July on politico.com, Dr. Paul dismissed Palin supporters as "more establishment, conventional country-club type of Republicans", and faulted her for not talking about things like the Federal Reserve. Recall what I said above about Dr. Paul's political instincts. I know some "establishment, conventional, country-club type" Republicans, and they are most definitely not Sarah Palin's base. And she is talking about the Fed.
Nevertheless, there are a few caveats to consider before we go rushing out to draft Sarah Palin for President:
She's a little too close to the neocons. Midway through the Times article, we learn that she was accompanied to Hong Kong by Randy Scheunemann, a foreign policy advisor to John McCain and advisor to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Scheunemann was also president of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an organization that beat the drums for the Iraq invasion. Palin's pre-McCain-campaign views on Iraq were not very clear, although I got the impression she was harboring some doubts. I worry that she might be taken over and "managed" by neocons, like she was during the campaign.
I'm not sure of her views on civil liberties. She's very strong on the Second Amendment, but, although I like Palin and defended her during the campaign, I have to admit to cringing a little when she uttered phrases about "terrorists" and accused Democrats of wanting to "raise the white flag of surrender". I would like to know how she feels about the Patriot Act, the War on Drugs and other assaults on civil liberties.
Palin may not want to be President. I'll go farther than that and say I don't think she does. (In fact, I said as much back in July, when she announced her resignation as governor of Alaska.) She has not been acting like a Presidential candidate. She has limited her speaking engagements mostly to groups supporting causes dear to her heart — pro-life, Second Amendment, special needs children — and has stayed away from events that are considered de rigueur for aspiring Republican Presidential candidates, like the recent Values Voters Summit in Washington.
Some might consider husband Todd's past membership in the Alaskan Independence Party to be a negative. To me, that's a point in her favor. It would be a negative only with respect to her ability to win the Republican nomination or the general election.
Weighing all the relevant factors — including the inability of libertarians to agree on an effective political strategy (which should be evident to anyone who regularly reads Nolan Chart) — Sarah Palin is looking pretty good. She's certainly got the right idea about the economy. As for the rest, we'll just have to see.
* PDS — Palin Derangement Syndrome
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 35 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Phil Manger only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Phil Manger is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
For all you Johnny Come Latelys, we libertarian Republicans who have been screaming at the top of our lungs for years now, that Sarah Palin was a libertarian, are going to say one thing to you all:
Wanna know the most under-reported news story from the 2008 campaign?
Sarah Palin's extensive ties to the Libertarian Party.
Cold hard facts:
Ms. Palin has attended numerous Libertarian Party meetings in Anchorage over the years, most recently in 2005/06 at the invite of longtime LPA Sec. Rob Clift.
Ms. Palin was endorsed the the ENTIRE!!! Board of the LPA in her 2006 campaign for Governor.
Ms. Palin received the last minute endorsement of her Libertarian opponent in the Governor's race in 2006 - Billy Toien.
Ms. Palin publicly thanked the "Libertarian Party of Alaska" in front of over 1,000 people at the downtown Egan Center in Anchorage on Election Night for "helping her to win the election."
Ms. Palin gave a giant bear hug to LPA Chair Jason Dowell in front of all the TV cameras in Anchorage the night of the election.
Sarah Palin IS!! a Libertarian. She's Libertarian to the core. And for anyone to suggest otherwise is an utter absurdity.
Eric Dondero, 25+ Year Libertarian Party member
Fmr. Libertarian National Committee
Fmr. Personal Aide to Two past Libertarian Presidential candidates - Roger MacBride, 1976 & Ron Paul, 1988
Fmr. Senior Aide, US Congressman Ron Paul, 1996-2003
You must understand there is no way that Palin will run under the Libertarian ticket or describe herself as such. She has too much common sense for that. Whether she is conservative or libertarian, it doesn't really matter, as long as she can unseat the boy king is all that matters to me at this point.
I'd better clarify this now. I'm not in any way suggesting that Sarah Palin run as the Libertarian Party candidate. That would surely doom her candidacy, and likely the candidate, to obscurity because, in my opinion, the Libertarian Party has become irrelevant.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-09-24 09:19:59
Hi Phil,
While I am not a Libertarian and I am not a fan of Sarah Palin, I appreciate your outside-the-box thinking.
The way I see it, if Ron Paul couldn't manage to convince Libertarians to abandon their self-marginalizing behavior and get behind him, Sarah Palin doesn't have a glimmer of hope of doing so.
Personally, I'll follow Ron Paul's lead. If he endorses a GOP candidate I will do everything I can to help that candidate be successful in the GOP primary. Then, come November, I'll probably lodge my protest vote under the Constitution Party. I used to park my protest in the LP box but these days I consider any association with the LP as a liability in the stuggle for the defense of liberty.
I dont know about you but I read writings by various Libertarians during the 2008 season that firmly believed that when Barr announced his candidacy for the LP many were skeptical. Some said that this was a conservative or neoconservative inflitration into the LP in order for them to show that picking Barr was compromising our prinicpals.
Pardon my skepticism but Republicans as a whole have been talking the Libertarian economic talk since Obama became president. Ron Paul is still the only one I personally believe that actually means it not just talking about it to get votes. If Libertarians were upset over Barr, any type of endorsement of a Republican should be looked at very closely. As you state Palin is too close to conservative statists (social and "security") for my tastes. If there is a Republican that we can get behind I would take alook at Gary Johnson (Fmr Gov of New Mexico) or possibly Jon Huntsman (fmr Gov of Utah). Like the Democrats the Republicans can talk alot of hot air and get enough people to buy into it, if 2012 is to be the year of liberty we cannot afford any mistakes.
Sarah DID comment on the Federal Reserve in her HK speech. For what she said, check with the Wall street journal. They printed numerous lengthy excerpts from the speech, including the one about the FR,
The idea that Palin can somehow jump into the Liberty movement from the depths of the war mongering, big government, neocon lair and perhaps lead it is preposterous!
She absolutely destroyed any chances that McCain had at victory (not that a McCain victory would have been a good thing).
This woman would be a curse for the Liberty movement, and I think the neocons are pushing her for exactly this reason.
I think that smart Libertarians, like Ron Paul and many here at the Chart, could get behind an electable Conservative Libertarian that could win the ticket of the Republican Party and run against Obama in 2012.
You have to be kidding. Associating libertarians with Sarah Palin is a Trojan Horse. Adopting the most hated woman in America is a bad political move. She is not a libertarian! She is for an interventionist foreign policy, first of all, which is a completely non-libertarian policy. She favors expanding the Armed Forces. She doesn't believe in gay marriage, which opposes what I consider to be one of the most libertarian beliefs. She wants to use government to promote religion (intelligent design, National day of Prayer). She favors the death penalty, which many libertarians don't agree with. She doesn't want to legalize marijuana. She favors the Patriot Act, which infringes liberty.
Associating the Libertarian Party with a chance to win in an unwinnable environement is delusional. Perhaps Sarah Palin is becoming more Libertarian in her thinking... sure seems to be a consensus building around that notion. Maybe she's felt more that way all along. She's dissed as much by the Pubs as the Libs. Bottom line... she probably the best chance this country may have for change toward smaller governtment that even Libertarians might like to settle for considering all other options. And, she just might be electable. If she is on the Republican ticket, perhaps except for Ron Paul who I wrote in last time, who would you vote for?
Okay, I read it. Still stupid. What do you mean you have no idea what her views are on drugs and civil liberties? She has spoken out in favor of the war on drugs and she has a poor record on civil liberties. She is a fundamentalist nutter with all the drawbacks associated with that mental infliction. What compels you to suggest an even bigger sell-out than Barr I don't know. Why not just join the GOP and get it over with.
As a 20 year supporter of the Georgia Libertarian Party I saw firts hand what a pathetic choice for someone like Bob Barr to represent our party could do to ruin a great state chapter.. When he announced his candidacy, many of Georgias commited Libertarians left the party. Some even went to work on the Obama campaign. While we were once one of the strongest state chapters in the country our membership has now dropped significantly. Having Sarah Palin as a figurehead in the Libertarian Party would be like asking Hitler to officiate Passover rituals. As stated by previous writers Sarah Palin is no friend of the Libertarian Party and would finish off what was left of the party after Barrs disasterous run for the presidency.
Until Rand Paul can make a name for himself in the Senate Gov Palin is as close to a Libertarian that the American people can hope to have in the White House.
She can definitely win in 2012. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in total denial of her attraction among voters in America. She is smart charasmatic, strong willed and true Patriot. Her values are the values of most Americans
There will always be people who hate her like the plague no matter what she does so be it. But she will win in 2012 if she chooses to run. You can bet your Patrick Henry on it.
You betcha
Support Rand Paul for US Senate in 2010. He has raised over $1 million and counting. He just added over $200,000 to his coffers just this last week, all of it in small donations. $2 million should get him the KY Senatorial seat in 2010.
Regarding Civil Libererties a lot of those can be handled through the 10th Amendment, which Gov Palin supports.
WND reported when outgoing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the GOP\'s 2008 vice presidential candidate, signed a joint resolution declaring Alaska\'s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Palin signed House Joint Resolution 27, sponsored by state Rep. Mike Kelly on July 10, according to a Tenth Amendment Center report. The resolution \"claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.\"
Alaska\'s House passed HJR 27 by a vote of 37-0, and the Senate passed it by a vote of 40-0.
According to the report, the joint resolution does not carry with it the force of law, but supporters say it is a significant move toward getting their message out to other lawmakers, the media and grassroots movements.
Be it resolved that the Alaska State Legislature hereby claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.
Be it further resolved that this resolution serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.
There do however remain questions of where she stands on several Civil Liberties issues.
We know that Gov Palin is pro-life. There is a strong Libertarian argument for being pro-life
The Libertarian Case Against Abortion
One popular misconception is that libertarianism as a political principle supports choice on abortion. And major elements within the libertarian movement (the Libertarian Party, for example) take abortion-choice stands. Nonetheless, libertarianism\'s basic principle is that each of us has the obligation not to aggress against (violate the rights of) anyone else -- for any reason (personal, social, or political), however worthy. That is a clearly pro-life principle. Recognizing that, and seeing the abortion-choice drift within the libertarian movement, Libertarians for Life was founded in 1976 to show why abortion is a wrong under justice, not a right.
We see our mission as presenting the pro-life case to libertarians and the libertarian case to pro-lifers. Among supporters of LFL, some of us are members of the Libertarian Party, some are not. Some are religious, some are not. (Doris Gordon, our Founder and Coordinator, is a Jewish atheist.) Our reasoning is expressly scientific and philosophical rather than either pragmatic or religious, or merely political or emotional.
To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:
1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
3. One\'s right to control one\'s own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother\'s body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally \"de-person\" any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.
For more, please read LFL\'s literature in the Library.
http://www.l4l.org/
I do not know where she stands on the issue of gay marriage, however my guess is that while she may personnally have an anti-gay marriage position that most likley she would say that it falls under the 10th Amendment, which is where it does. What individual states do with it is up to them.
Regarding the decriminization of drugs Gov Palin is against it
She is for intellectual property rights From here talk in Hong Kong last week
On China-U.S. economic relations:
Our economic interdependence drives our relationship with China. I see a future of more trade with China and more American high tech goods in China. But in order for that to happen, we need China to improve its rule of law, and protect our intellectual property
Of course there are Libertarian arguments on both sides on this issue. I happen to think that the argument against is very strong and maybe stronger than the argument for.
The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights
by Roderick T. Long
It would be interesting to discover how far a seriously critical view of the benefits to society of the law of copyright ... would have a chance of being publicly stated in a society in which the channels of expression are so largely controlled by people who have a vested interest in the existing situation.
— Friedrich A. Hayek, \"The Intellectuals and Socialism\"
A Dispute Among Libertarians
The status of intellectual property rights (copyrights, patents, and the like) is an issue that has long divided libertarians. Such libertarian luminaries as Herbert Spencer, Lysander Spooner, and Ayn Rand have been strong supporters of intellectual property rights. Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, was ambivalent on the issue, while radical libertarians like Benjamin Tucker in the last century and Tom Palmer in the present one have rejected intellectual property rights altogether.
When libertarians of the first sort come across a purported intellectual property right, they see one more instance of an individual\'s rightful claim to the product of his labor. When libertarians of the second sort come across a purported intellectual property right, they see one more instance of undeserved monopoly privilege granted by government.
I used to be in the first group. Now I am in the second. I\'d like to explain why I think intellectual property rights are unjustified, and how the legitimate ends currently sought through the expedient of intellectual property rights might be secured by other, voluntary means. (cont on link)
http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html
The above are just a few issues that I present for discussion.
Posted By: George Phillies
Date: 2009-09-27 06:52:23
Palin may well follow Ron Paul. They are both Republicans. There are issues that let you tell Republicans from Libertarians, none being a perfect litmus test, and they are Republicans. Issues? They are antiabortionists, while libertarians are pro-choice. Neither is exactly prominent as an opponent of the war on drugs. Palin supported the War on Iraq; Paul offered a bill before the invasions that was a declaration of war on Iraq. Neither appears to support equal rights under the law for the GLBTQPL community. And, of course, they both chose to *run* as Republicans. Both in different tones support the racist 'state's rights' doctrine that states have rights, a position categorically rejected by the Constitution, which allows that states have some powers (10th Amendment) but only people have rights.
Palin will usher in the death of the Republican Party as a national party (which may or may not be a good thing). Regardless of how she positions herself, she is beholden to, and a darling of, a poorly-educated theocratic right. She can be a guarenteed pro-Police State and religious right conservative, and is utterly unacceptable to both anyone claiming to be a libertarian and to moderate, middle, independent America. That, of course, is not stopping Conservatives-masquerading-as-Libertarians from pushing her in various places and Republican "Liberty" Caucus email lists right now.
The sooner the Palin of the GOP are disavowed, the sooner we will be able to restore the GOP to being a party that *really* believes in liberty and small government, in ALL areas of our lives.
Phillies almost nailed it. However, whether Palin becomes the next Ron Paul or Reagan is irrelevant - she is not a true libertarian and never will be. Restoring the GOP to its original state is also a joke, I think - the traditional GOP that Ron Paul is so fond of, in actuality, was the aberration - not the norm.
The libertarians infiltrated the GOP! - not the other way around. Before then, Republicans were much like today's Democrats. Why would you want to go back to a system like that is beyond me...
I actually was a hard core Ron Paul supporter, district chair etc, but will be supporting Sarah Palin in 2012. She is very acceptable and can we can finally win with her. I have voted third party in every election since Reagan - who was the last GOP Presidential candiate I voted for. Things to like about Sarah Palin - she is not an elitist, she is an average American, she lives in an average house, she does not belong to the CFR, she is and has proved that she is for small government, she understands the FED, she is against the Real ID and she knows how to connect with the average citizen.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
