Just about everyone across the political spectrum has sounded off about Sarah Palin (who has predictably been praised and denounced for her appearance at the Tea Party Convention), and all the while I have remained silent. Perhaps too suspiciously silent, perhaps not.

In an earlier email to M. Simon, I explained why I didn't want to discuss Sarah Palin at the present time, and I thought I would share my thoughts here. Especially because some libertarians have been dumping on her, and I think that's a terrible mistake. Not only is she the closest thing we'll ever get to having an electable libertarian with a chance at the nation's highest office, but it's just bad strategy, and I'll try to explain why.

I liked everything Palin said at the convention -- right up to the question and answer portion, at which point she sort of lost me (after being prompted, it seemed) with what I saw as inappropriate remarks about injecting God into politics and seeking divine intervention. It's easy for libertarians to get worked up about stuff like that, but again, context is everything. (And Judson Phillips isn't Greta van Susteren.)

I may be wrong, but Sarah Palin strikes me as one of those people who is highly resistant to criticism, and I think libertarians would get more out of her with honey. It would be a shame for her to side with the cultural conservatives simply because they are nicer to her. But that is what happens with politics, and this type of who-is-my-natural-friend thinking also explains why artists and gays tend to be on the left.

Not to generalize, but a big problem with libertarians is that they (and I mean we, as I don't except myself) can be rude. And personal. (Like Ayn Rand, perhaps?) If we assume that Sarah Palin wants to take a big view of the political world, it would be very petty for libertarians to react against her cultural conservative followers by taking it out on her. Incidentally, lest anyone assume I'm a hopelessly nice guy, I think I should point out here that my private anger is often very nasty and it tends to act as a brake on what I say in public or on my blog (thus making me appear nicer than I am). The weird thing is, I often suspect that a lot of the people who vent angrily on their blogs are probably less angry in private, so there might be another paradox worth pondering some time.

If I had to speculate, I would say that the cultural conservatives are at least as worried about Palin's libertarian, pro-Constitution streak as the libertarians are about her social conservatism. (I remember how some of them freaked over the way she allowed gay spousal benefits.) And Palin's cultural conservative supporters might very well be smart enough to realize that the way to turn her against libertarians is to:

a: insult and provoke libertarians as much as possible (not a difficult task for so-cons); and

b: create the impression that they are doing it in her name.

So, while I understand their temptations to get snarky, libertarians should remember that it costs nothing to be nice.

But being mean can be very expensive.

MORE: Via Glenn Reynolds, Jennifer Rubin quotes "the dean of conventional Beltway wisdom, David Broder":

Blessed with an enthusiastic audience of conservative activists, Palin used the Tea Party gathering and coverage on the cable networks to display the full repertoire she possesses, touching on national security, economics, fiscal and social policy, and every other area where she could draw a contrast with Barack Obama and point up what Republicans see as vulnerabilities in Washington.

(Least of all from the so-called "front runner" Mike Huckabee!)