Classical Values :: Who will betray the libertarians for Palin?

July 31, 2009

Who will betray the libertarians for Palin?

It's bad enough when she is mercilessly bashed from the left. But it really stings when Republicans lay into her.

As one of Sarah Palin's more clueless (but libertarian) fans, it was with great anticipation that I clicked on the link to John Hawkins' from-the-heart analysis ("Why Sarah Palin Fans Feel Betrayed") of why her more, um, I guess that would be non-libertarianish fans feel especially betrayed when others on the right attack her.

For starters, they already feel regularly betrayed by the left:

To be conservative is to be betrayed on a regular basis. You send your kids to a school that tries to slyly indoctrinate them into liberalism, you come home to watch an "unbiased" news show that covers almost every story differently based on whether a Republican or Democrat is involved, and then you try to unwind by watching TV shows that take guarded shots at the values you cherish.

I don't like left-wing advocacy, period, and I especially don't like seeing it sneaked into TV programming. That's why I hardly watch any television, as if I did, it would not make me unwind; it would incline me to yell and scream impotently at the television set.

Unfortunately, I hang out with leftists, and because I have defended Sarah Palin many times in this blog (a thankless task for a libertarian, BTW...) I find their attacks on Sarah Palin more personally humiliating and intolerable than attacks from the right. That's because I think the latter are more likely to listen to (and maybe even be influenced by) my libertarian spin on Sarah than leftists I know, who at most might allow a sort of eyeball-rolling agreement to disagree.

Hawkins mentions the double standard (which allows Ted Kennedy to drown girls but won't tolerate so much as a gaffe from Sarah Palin), and of course there's her failure to be part of the Ivy League elite, and the bizarre, twisted, and in many ways politically unprecedented attacks on her children. For the record, these are not new topics here. Nor is the post election smear campaign against her.

The reason I'm sounding a tad put-upon is that for some reason I don't think Palin's more vociferous culturally conservative supporters would especially welcome support coming from someone like me. (If I took pieces like these too seriously I'd be more inclined to feel betrayed by Palin supporters than by her opponents.) Not that I'm wanting to sound like a martyr. I certainly don't feel betrayed, because after all, social conservatives cannot "betray" libertarians, any more than libertarians can "betray" social conservatives. I guess I might call myself slightly peeved -- (and probably irrationally paranoid). I mean, if I'm not welcomed by everyone in the Palin tent, I'm old enough to be a big boy and dry my eyes.

Hawkins notes an unspoken assumption by conservatives that Palin is like them, but that her enemies on the right are not, and that in this respect, she was like Reagan:

An unspoken assumption was made by many conservatives: Palin is like me and the real problem that Palin's enemies on the right have with her is that they're snobs and they don't accept common people like me in their leadership.

Given the way that conservatives are regularly betrayed and the contempt for them that some Republicans have shown over the last few years, that assessment is probably correct more often than not.

That's why a lot of conservatives react to criticism of Palin from the right the same way that they react to criticism of Reagan. Granted, Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan. But one of the seldom discussed reasons conservatives love Reagan so much is because he was the personification of their principles. This was the man who put what conservatives believed in to the test in the real world and proved the worth of their ideas. An attack on Reagan from the right was not just considered to be a slap at a politician, politician, but was also treated like an assault on the value system of "Reagan conservatives."

Well, there is one notable cultural difference between Reagan and Palin. Reagan ramped up (and to be fair, largely began) the modern "Drug War."

Palin smoked pot!

(Yay!)

Or do I get kicked out of the tent for saying that?

It's only my gentle way of saying that I prefer her to Reagan, whose Culture War side I regarded as unfortunate and unnecessarily divisive. (A consequence of this was that too many bohemian types like me found themselves relegated to the left, and by both sides.)

Of course, while she lacked Reagan's vital Hollywood connection, like Reagan, Palin was anything but Ivy League:

The same principle applies to Palin except the assault is considered to be primarily on people's identity, not their values. The thinking goes, "If the snobs on the right don't like Palin because she's a conservative with an accent who isn't rich, didn't go to an Ivy League school, and wouldn't be welcome at their cocktail parties, then they wouldn't like me for the exact same reasons."

That doesn't mean Sarah Palin can't be criticized from the right or that all of her critics have bad motives. Palin certainly can and should be knocked, if and when she deserves it.

I find it refreshing that Sarah Palin is a down-to-earth real person, and not an Ivy League snot. I can't stand the fact that a degree from Harvard conveys a quasi divine right to tell people what to do and how to live their lives, and I like the fact that Sarah Palin very definitely does not want to do that. However, if I thought she did want to run people's lives, where she went to college would be a secondary issue. Similarly, if a hands-off libertarian type had gone to Harvard, I'd be be very quick to forgive. These things should not matter. Just as an Ivy League education should convey no right to rule, unless we're going to use a neo-Maoist litmus test, neither should the lack thereof.

Her well-meaning critics on the right should just be aware of the dynamic at work here and should tailor their criticism accordingly.

There's only one Sarah Palin and there's not another soul on the national stage who can even come close to filling her high heels. At a time when the Republican Party has lost so many seats in Congress that it's teetering on the brink of irrelevancy, Palin's detractors on the right should ask themselves how much sense it makes to help the liberal media try to tear down the biggest star in the conservative movement.

My biggest problem with Palin is not with Palin, but with some of her supporters. However, over the years I have learned to hold my nose, hold my tongue, and grit my teeth. I spent eight years defending George W. Bush from attacks that remind me of those against Sarah Palin. (Both, of course, are seen as hopeless, intractable morons.) It's a thankless task and it got -- and gets -- a litte tedious. No one pays me to do it -- least of all the Palin supporters who'd probably be delighted to have me stomp petulantly out of their tent.

But this will all settle down as the election approaches, right? So maybe I should relax! And enjoy.

Why is it that something three years away has to feel so gol-durned imminent?

posted by Eric on 07.31.09 at 12:56 PM

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/8579

Comments

"I spent eight years defending George W. Bush from attacks that remind me of those against Sarah Palin."

Both these ambushes convinced me that leftists' characters were too poor to ever be trusted with power.

Brett · July 31, 2009 02:20 PM

Hawkins: There's only one Sarah Palin and there's not another soul on the national stage who can even come close to filling her high heels.

This is what scares me. Not too long ago the Netherlands had a prominent conservative politician who fit this description, and who had the same knack for rallying people around him as Palin does. You may have heard of him. His name was Pim Fortuyn, and when he was murdered, he proved to be irreplaceable as no other Dutch politician was capable of taking up his mantle, and so the following he had developed soon died with him.

Palin may be able to rally the GOP around her, either as their presidential nominee or in more of a behind-the-scenes role. But as long as she is as irreplaceable as Fortuyn was, her following will be just as vulnerable, for there's no telling if/when someone will see fit to move beyond mere character assassination.

Joshua · July 31, 2009 03:02 PM

Why are you a big fan of Sarah Palin? Seriously. OK -- a good looking woman who shoots well is an intrinsic joy. But other than that.

Politicos from Alaska always are suspect because, well, it's a welfare state. Everyone there gets checks from the government for the extraction of resources they did nothing to create or nurture. That peculiar economic distortion really hurts their ability to propose that they have relevant experience for governing other places.

I just don't see her as being all that libertarian when the rubber hits the road.

Fritz · July 31, 2009 04:07 PM

Fritz,

You need to approach it from a different direction. Suppose the Alaskan Government had just spent the money and not given it to the people?

Or think of where we would be re: oil independence if every American got a yearly oil royalty check?

M. Simon · July 31, 2009 06:42 PM

And yes. Palin is not Libertarian Party libertarian.

Which IMO is a good thing.

M. Simon · July 31, 2009 06:45 PM

Considering the people the LP is nominating these days, I would agree with you about "Libertarian Party libertarian".

I just don't see what she has done to cut the size of government or get the government out of people's personal lives.

Fritz · July 31, 2009 07:45 PM

"Politicos from Alaska always are suspect because, well, it's a welfare state. Everyone there gets checks from the government for the extraction of resources they did nothing to create or nurture. That peculiar economic distortion really hurts their ability to propose that they have relevant experience for governing other places."
Thats a somewhat narrow view. After all its just a State government who found a way to return to its citizens some recompense for the Alaskan lifestyle.
Arnold in "KaliFornia" had better start looking at all that oil bubbling offshore in Santa Barbara.

JerseyGeorge · July 31, 2009 08:50 PM

Alaskans had better hope they can start getting annual checks for methane hydrate leases before the oil fields give out. Otherwise the "Alaskan lifestyle" is going to get a bit dicey.

Fritz · July 31, 2009 10:39 PM

Palin is no Joan d'Arc, fellas. Project your wishes all you want but you can't make a great leader out of a mixed bag like Sarah.
She will fight for capitalism & freedom by what, confiscating oil company profits and distributing them to average Joe's pockets, at the expense of the rightful owners, the stockholders?
This woman is little more than an old fashioned muck-raking populist.
Her personal appeal notwithstanding, can anyone find the bedrock of principles this woman stands on other than Right to Life?

Or maybe that's the point. She's a political tabula rasa to be manipulated & guided by libertarian handlers.

Frank · August 1, 2009 12:55 AM

A state with so much income from wise resource use that it even gives a tidy cut to the citizens quite frankly does NOT sound like an example to turn away from! Idealogy alone uber alles ain't the way to go when you're dealing with living, breathing humans to whom that cash will mean great material benefit and 'quality of life.' It won't go on forever, what institution does? (Imagine a USA with enough income from Solar Power Satellites to pay back its "astronomical" debt and distribute the profits to all taxpayers.) Add to this some of Alaska's freedom in personal areas and it looks to me to be a state trying to move in right directions, with the caveat of always remaining eagle-eyed for corruption in high places. Which brings the topic full circle to the former governor who rose as a corruption-fighter.

Stewart · August 1, 2009 01:13 AM

From Simon: "I just don't see what she has done to cut the size of government or get the government out of people's personal lives". Well, if you looked for more than 10 seconds you may have found this:
Governor Murkowski's last budget FY2007: $11,697,400,000

Governor Palin's latest budget FY2010: $10,570,000,000

A general rule of thumb for both liberal and conservative administrations is to claim that they may reasonably increase spending every year at a rate of 2% to 3% because of inflation and that should not count against them as increased spending. Even if we use the low end of inflation at 2%, Governor Palin's budget could have been (without calling it a spending increase): $12,413,374,459.20

Of course, the budget is not $12.4 billion; it is actually $10.57 billion. In other words, she cut spending.

Mark · August 1, 2009 09:47 AM