United Liberty
Sarah Palin: Libertarian For President? Are You Kidding Me?
Fri, 09/25/2009 - 11:47am | posted by Doug Mataconis
Over at NolanChart, one writer suggests that the Libertarian Party might want to look at a certain former Alaska Governor:
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.
(…)
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.”
The author seemed to be especially impressed with this portion of Palin’s speech in Hong Kong:
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,” he claims. What goes unmentioned, though, is that Palin was striking a very different tone when she was running for Vice-President last year:
Now, assuming you can get anything coherent out of that, it’s pretty clear that Palin supported the bailouts back when it actually mattered. And, up until she quit, she was the Governor of a state that received more federal funds per capita than anyone else in the Union and in which citizens received an annual check from the state government for their share of “commonly owned” oil and gas royalties.
She ain’t no libertarian.
Astonishing the “libertarians” coming out of the woodwork! There is, of course, the possibility of a real “conversion” taking place, it has happened to many of us, myself included. But let’s see the walk match the talk, and then I will believe them.
In fairness, although I agree that Palin is not a strict libertarian; the funds that were given to Alaska were a result of Alaskan congressman and Senators who were very vocal about their “need” for “federal monies.”
Also, the annual checks have been coming for decades, the program starting before Ms. Palin was even out of high school.
Although she presided as governor, she was NOT a dictator and was subject to “the will of the people.” Would you blame Ron Paul for the earmarks that he’s accepted for his district? I wouldn’t, and I don’t think it’s fair to blame Ms Palin for these things either…. Read More
I certainly agree that her support of the war and the bailouts disqualifies her enough without having to blame everything that is wrong with Alaskan government on her.
I, too, believe people can change. I think we are witnessing a transformation of poltical philosophy. Time will tell.
There’s no “changing” about Sarah Palin. She’s been affiliated with the libertarian movement for decades. It’s one of the most underwritten stories from the 2008 campaign.
Palin was confirmed to have attended at least two Libertarian Party meetings in Anchorage in 2005/06. She was later endorsed for Gov. by the Libertarian Party leadership that year.
Notably she was slammed that year in the GOP primaries for “not really being a Republican, but rather a closeted Libertarian.”
But there’s now evidence coming out that she may have been in fact, an official Libertarian Party member in the 1980s and 90s.
The Boston Herald wrote up a story late in the campaign about her two top “Libertarian” campaign workers in her many Mayoral contests in the 90s. And note her husband Todd is a longtime member of the Alaska Independence Party, which was closely affiliated with the Libertarian Party of Alaska for a few years in the 1980s.
Sarah Palin is no stranger to Libertarians. Those who marvel at her “newfound libertarianism,” are utterly ignorant of the woman and her political background.
“She seemed to be positioning herself”
Does anything else need to be said? I may be a skeptic, but it seems no different than what always happens, namely politicians claiming to be or behaving as if they are whatever it popular at the moment.
I’m going to disagree with Eric above; I don’t see her as even resembling a libertarian, not yet. She leans far too close to the Christian conservative line for me, who, as we know, are all too willing to deny liberties to select groups to be libertarian.
However most libertarians are such after “seeing the light” so to speak. They came to it after getting screwed by the two parties. So I will allow Palin and Beck and the others to chance to demonstrate that they are moving this way to stay, not to just “hang with the cool kids” until it is no longer cool.
I don’t see that much difference between Sarah Palin and Bob Barr.
The only difference is the LP decided to run former GOP big-shot Bob Barr as their Standard Bearer for their party, which was a bit of a stretch, since I understand he still held some views that are not exactly libertarian in nature.
When the LP decided to run on Bob Barr’s “popularity” to try to get more votes, instead of running a candidate that holds a true Libertarian philosophy, they showed they were no different than the GOP or Democrat Party in that respect.
So, if Libertarians allowed Bob Barr to be the Standard Bearer for their so called, “Party of Principle,” why not embrace Sarah Palin, or even Glenn Beck, spreading their wings in a potential flight toward libertarianism? Maybe they will carry a bunch of people with them.