It would be very strange for libertarians to support a social conservative who endorses the drug war and other government constraints on victimless personal behavior.

Get your facts straight next time, Eric Dondero.

2012 is a long way away. It is a bit pointless to start speculating about this now. Who would have predicted either Obama or McCain in 2004?

Yeah I’m gonna have to agree that Eric’s either shamelessly going to bat for Palin or he doesn’t have his head in this game yet because all Palin is is a female Mike Huckabee–two people who are only conservative in cultural identity. They are, for lack of a better word, Culturalists. There’s no sensible reason to think that Palin or Huckabee could ever mount a serious bid for the nomination, much less challenge Obama in 4 years.

As far as the rest of the known field goes, well hell Romney would be ideal as the face of our party now, out of power, since his abilities to rebuild by building consensus throughout his accomplished record are by way of inclusion, of encouraging dissent, not by any exclusionary tendencies like we see from the culturalists. And what we need now is for the clashing factions of our party to unite.

In 4 years, yes, Jindal should be a bigger player, and I expect Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan to do well for themselves as well, if not better. But none of these three has the stature to orchestrate any party recovery currently, and they may not gravitate to the national level in 4 years either. So, my conclusion is that no recovery will be made anytime soon if Republicans are interested in elevating cultural rhetoric ahead of substance, and Obama will win more easily than he did over McCain this year. In other words, that segment of religious bigots will have to put aside their hatred of mormonism because Romney is our guy tasked to rebuild our party, and from there we’ll see, in about 2 years, how the rest of the field looks.

I love all the commenters who say things like, “do your research next time” and then….present absolutely no “research” of their own to support their assertions.

Is this just a cut-and-paste jab that you guys use as filler when you have nothing actually substantive to say?

Fact is that Palin has a down-the-line conventional set of socially conservative positions on the drug war and abortion and gay marriage. It is true that she never made a priority of acting on those positions, but that doesn’t change the content of those positions. Trying to cast her as a libertarian is just factually wrong, not matter how much you try to change the subject.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with having social conservatives play a role in the party, but I think that as long as they continue to demand that they dominate the party absolutely and with no tolerance for any dissent, the Republican Party will continue to find it very difficult to build or sustain a viable electoral coalition. It is not social conservatism itself that is destructive, it is the intolerant purism of so many social conservatives that alienates and divides. In that way, they are similar to the intolerant haters of the left who are even as we type going ballistic in their frustration at Obama’s failure to be sufficiently “progressive” and virulently anti-Republican in his transition. For the purists from the extremes, deviations within their own party are considered worse than those on the other side.

I now leave the thread for the intolerant social conservatives to prove my point for me by posting more abusive comments towards anyone who has the temerity to, you know, disagree with them or anything.

To play devil’s advocate Jason: Don’t you think you’re advocating the purism you hate so much by arguing against the inconsistency of the LP by nominating Barr or Paul?

I don’t think you can argue against the social conservatives demanding the Republicans being pure socialcons and then turn around and say it’s wrong for a libertarian to be anything other than a pure libertarian.

Good points on the conspiracy theory thing.

This article has fallen into the trap that the liberal media is trying to set for Palin. They want her to be seen primarily as a social conservative, because they don’t want her to appeal to moderates and independents.

In Palin’s RNC speech, she never spoke about either abortion or gay marriage – her message was good government and less of it. She talked about how she had governed with an ear to her constituents and had fought special interests. She mentioned how she took on Alaska’s culture of corruption and started reining in earmarks.

Matt Lewis of Townhall has already put together a montage of quotes and actions regarding Palin’s fiscal record in Alaska before the campaign. Check it out here – http://townhall.com/blog/g/0dec7ac9-3af7-460c-9780-e70109ce9b42

Palin was also known for her bipartisan governance.

If Palin runs in 2012, it will be primarily on a diverse platform of fiscal conservatism, energy independence, and a record of achievement in bipartisan work. She won’t shy away from issues such as abortion or gay marriage either, but I’m sure the focus of her campaign would be on the economy, energy, and bipartisanship. Please don’t go along with the stereotype of her as Huckabee-like social conservative.

Thank you for all the supportive comments her of my original comment, and for all you all backing me up on the facts against the Editor, who seems rather clueless on the issue of Sarah Palin’s libertarian background.

But hey, don’t take my word for it. Just Google: “Sarah Palin libertarian.” You might find the big article from mid-October by the Boston Globe that had sent an investigative reporter up to Alaska to dig into her background. The title of the article was “Sarah Palin an extremist libertarian who wants to privatize government services, whose anti-zoning, and against eminent domain.” Yeah, that’s right, the Globe thought by slamming her for being Pro-Property Rights, that that would be a negative to her.

I go back to 2006. And I should remind the editor here, that I WAS IN ALASKA IN 2006. I remember Palin being attacked by her opponents for being a “libertarian.” First, it came in the GOP primaries by Frank Murkowski and some social conservatives who started a whisper campaign, “Sarah is not really a Republican you know… she’s actually a Libertarian.” All because she had attended a few Libertarian Party meetings that year. But that didn’t stop them. They even started saying that “Sarah is a supporter of drug legalization…” All because she once made a positive comment about marijuana, and had admitted to smoking it herself in her Youth. It didn’t stop there. In the general election, the Democrats used the ‘L’ word against Sarah Palin too. They tried to say she was a “government slashing libertarian,” who didn’t care for the people. And the ultra-liberal Anchorage media backed them up on this.

Now we’ve got people like Jason, two and a half years later, trying to slam her for being exactly the opposite? Trying to claim she’s some sort of Mike Huckabee snake-handling religious conservative.

My gosh. Can the woman ever get a break? First she’s attacked for being “too libertarian,” and then she’s attacked for not being “libertarian enough.”

I guess it shows how truly powerful she is, and how much of an impact she has on people, that those from all sides, feel the need to trash her.

Sanford’s another prospective player, of course. Alongside Mike Pence, Sanford is sort of in that next-gen GOP class but sort of not. Both names surfaced as veep options in 2008 as well. They lacked the luster that catapulted Huckabee, Palin and Jindal into the spotlight however. Nonetheless Sanford and Pence are names that belong alongside Paul Ryan and Eric Cantor, who by most measures are reasonable, sane, pragmatic people, not culture warfare crusaders. Sanford and Pense will have to become undull somehow.

However, I beg to differ about Obama being a no-name in 2004. I think pretty much any politicalwatcher was well, well aware of him before that. When he gave his speech in 2004 at the DNC convention, everyone knew his name, and there was ample speculation then on out that he would run for the Presidency because he was one dynamic, promising guy. So, I don’t think it’s wrong to be speculating today on who from our flat landscape of republicans might rise up and build something meaningful. It’s not being disrespectful to the President-Elect and his incoming administration. I don’t think people, Republicans, considering who is in our ranks that could become a leading voice and potential nominee are in the wrong for cleaning our own house. We’re not being Rush Limbaugh and just bashing the next President before he even takes office, lol. We’re tending to our own affairs, as we should be.

Jason,

Being socially conservative is certainly not what we think of when we think of a libertarian, but Ron Paul by all means is definitely a libertarian–he’s not what you’d call a ‘conventional’ social conservative.

He also fits in with the people in the Constitution Party, which, by many measures are a libertarian party, except that they disagree with other libertarians on social issues. He parts with them in some ways–the Constitution Party is friendlier to policies like tariffs, while Paul, though opposing NAFTA, also supports free trade.

I don’t care whether Palin is really a libertarian or not, I just think its an error to put her in a box. She has some libertarian views and some views that run counter to libertarianism –her politics are a little idiosyncratic because Alaskan politics is idiosyncratic, and when she ran for governor she ran on the libertarian issues and not on the social conservative issues. If she chose how her Vice Presidential candidacy was covered this year, I’m also pretty sure she would have wanted emphasis on her libertarian views and not her social conservative views.

I don’t think she wants to be seen as the “social conservative candidate.” And by that means, she isn’t a ‘conventional’ social conservative, either.

The problem is putting everyone in little boxes.

If Sarah Palin really wants to put her money where her mouth is, she’d say “thanks but no thanks” to the Juneau Road to Nowhere and the Knik Arm Bridge to Nowhere! Alaska received money for these projects in the same federal spending spree that gave them the other Bridge to Nowhere. The total cost of both of these projects is well over $1 billion, and the decision is hers to cancel them or allow them to go forward. That will be the true test of what’s behind her fiscal conservative tough talk. Check out http://www.akbridgesandroadstonowhere.org for the details and this video about the crazy dangerous Juneau Road to Nowhere… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fai9UT8ZRrk

1.) Palin’s a darling of the social conservatives because of her identity, therefore unlibertarian by default.

2.) Ron Paul has many oddities about many of his supporters, and himself as well, but he is to be commended for not straying from the Republican Party and becoming one of these Third Party clowns. Third Parties are stupid and dilutive. The essence of virtually any debate, problem or issue naturally breaks down into two pretty distinct philosophies. This is why we have two major parties, and why preferably they disagree rather than work together in the spirit of bipartisanship to get things done. Using European multi-party systems to serve as an example of a government model where third parties are successful is a poor effort given that the United States remains the youngest nation yet has the longest standing government, and democracy. For all the whining and moaning about our government, no matter our President or Supreme Court, when the dust settles we remain way ahead of everyone else. So Libertarians, Constitutionalists, or Conservative Party types, please, please, please, don’t undermine your own cause by falling for some third party bozo; stay here and make your case within the Republican Party. Your odds of success are far greater that way anyway.

So, Jason, you will agree, mostly, with me about the cannibalistic nature of third parties, but will remain truer still to academe’s moot study of comparative government systems just to advize me to educate myself further? That’s contradictorily inconsistent.

I’m not being jingoistic or ethnocentric in pointing out that the American model is unique in how long it has lasted, and served as a force for democratization elsewhere. Those are merely facts. Clearly parties have come and gone throughout American history too, but in these instances is was a party rising to replace one that had become or was becoming defunct for whatever reason. Now, I’m not claiming there could never be a viable third party in modern American politics (which is a topic of discussion in Comments, irrespective of whichever nation’s outlet the host server may be plugged into), only reiterating that they are far more dilutive than instrumental. (Ron Paul did far better both for himself and influencing opinion by using the party platform rather than running as some third party fringe character like Bob Barr.)

As well as taking to task my knowledge of political science, you are also questioning my aptitude in logic and philosophy. I’ll grant you that in the confines of the sentence you isolated–separate from the elective political context within which it was written–yes, I’m wrong and there is no absolute that debates over any given issue will break down into two disntinct philosophies. For concern of practical matters though, meaning American elections and party politics, it is true. Many disenfranchised conservatives or spirited libertarians may desire coalescing around non-Republican voices or figures, and so say they do so. For a time that may serve a purpose to redirect or refocus the course of the GOP, but it will do little to establish a new party because the core tenets they hold are shared in the Republican party. In other words, the wayward Republicans ‘forced’ into a third party will find they can’t win on their narrow platform and will have to return to the party they left, or will have to expand their new party to be more inclusive. The result will be that either that third party eats the party it split from, or it is just another third party group of malcontents that gets piled on the ash heap of third parties. America is too big, and increasingly collegial for a third party to gain a foothold as you think it capable.

Citing Israel as an example is illogical and irrelevant since the nature of your example is one predicated on age old ethnic and religious squabbles–things that don’t exist in America unless your name is Mike Huckabee. As equally unrelated is the theory that competitive third parties in such lands is what prevents crackpots or despots from gravitating to power. Perhaps that is the case in some places, but the checks and balances of the 3 branches of the American system, and term limits, are what prevent that from being the case in America.

IN any event, if some are feeling fed up with their party, maybe it’s best they pursue the path of changing it from the inside rather than trying to set up shop in some single-issue third party. Hey, look at this year as all the evidence you need. The establishments of both the Democrat and Republican parties had their preferred candidates lose. It wasn’t the Clinton democrats, or the DLC, who advocated for Obama; he had the old liberal guard push him to the front. It wasn’t the GOP who supported McCain; he’s loathed by many Republicans in fact, yet he benefitted from the fractured field and fragile state of the party at the time. So what is patently false is to give up as if the two-party system is rigged and no one can get around the party bosses if they want to get nominated.

“I don’t care whether Palin is really a libertarian or not, I just think its an error to put her in a box.”

I agree with you Redfish.. but don’t you know that is the name of the game? Putting a politician in a box is the easy way out, that way you can assign all the negatives of that groups box to that person you are trying to box. I think Palin has A LONG LONG way to go to gain any sort of foothold as a serious contender going forward, but I do support her “un-boxiness” if that is a real phrase. If she can keep that up, I think that will only help her with the undecideds and maybe pull in a some disenfranchised middle-lefties and middle-righties.

Jason says:

As for Palin, if she wants to be seen a a libertarian and to distance herself from social conservatism, she has every opportunity to do so herself rather than rely on indirect reading of tea-leaves as Dondero wants us to do. Her choice not to do so indicates a conscious refusal, in my eyes. I’m generally sympathetic to Palin, however, so I would be very happy if she changed course to distance herself from social conservatives. If she thus proves me wrong, I’d be inclined to be much less critical of her potential to be a leader in a renewed Republican Party.

Eric responds:

Jason buddy. I was there on Election Night Nov. 8, 2006 at the downtown Egan Center in Anchorage. I saw Sarah Palin with my own two eyes publicly thank the Libertarian Party for their support for her campaign. In fact, she thanked them nearly first, after her family, and assembled VIPs. This was in front of over 1,000 Alaska politicos.

Believe me, she does not shy away from the libertarian label at all. Now, she won’t call herself a “Libertarian Party member,” but she will say that she’s a small ‘l’ libertarian, or “libertarian-conservative.” She’s been asked about that numerous times by the Anchorage media, and in debates, and she’s never backed down.

Eric, I can call myself and athlete, but that wouldn’t make it so. It also wouldn’t make me an athlete if I thanked or expressed my admiration for athletes in front of a crowd of 1,000 sports fans. And why do you keep trying to claim some kind of infallible personal authority based solely on your physical presence in Alaska?

Palin can only legitimately be called libertarian to the extent that she supports and upholds libertarian principles. The most fundamental of these is personal autonomy. It is intrinsically in conflict with social conservatism in a variety of areas, including the drug war and (to a more controversial degree) abortion. In her actual policy positions (you still can’t seem to bring yourself to use direct evidence), she consistently embraces socially conservative restrictions on personal autonomy. This indicates that her social conservatism trumps any vestigial fondness for libertarian principles. Bottom line: Whenever social conservatism is in conflict with libertarianism, Palin chooses social conservatism.

Can you respond substantively to this argument? Or do you only have another “I was in Alaska” anecdote to offer???

P.S. Counting Google hits or quoting the possibly misguided statements of critics is NOT direct evidence. Direct evidence of a politician’s commitments comes from their official policy statements and official actions. Critiques by others or unofficial statements in the form of thank-yous at a political rally are by definition INdirect evidence (and very poor quality indirect evidence, at that). Also, comments by others ABOUT Palin are BY DEFINITION “2nd hand”. Are you seriously claiming to be a credible political commentator while being ignorant of basic differentiations between types of evidence?

Please provide direct evidence of Palin taking SUBSTANTIVE libertarian positions in conflict with social conservative alternatives or else consider yourself defeated in this debate and buzz off.

Umm Sorry Jason, but you are wrong. Issues are not the only thing that makes one a “libertarian.” Take it from a 25 hardcore Libertarian political activist, sometimes called the Number One Libertarian Political Activist in the country. And I’ve got the bonafides to prove it:

You’re looking at the guy who got Ron Paul elected in Congress first time in 1996.

You’re looking at the guy who single-handidly founded the Republican Liberty Caucus.

You’re looking at the guy who for years has fought to move the Libertarian Party to political mainstream, ever since my first stint on the Libertarian National Committee in 1986.

You’re looking at the guy who worked in 7 states this year to get Libertarian Bob Barr on ballot: Illinois, Ohio, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Maine, Conn. and Rhode Island. I collected more signatures than anyone else, and have been called by LP Political Director Sean Haugh, the Nation’s “Number One Libertarian Petitioner.”

There are two other things that matter when judging whether someone is a libertarian or not, and all three are of equal importance:

Associations and affiliations.

How much one contributes to the libertarian movement monetarily or through hard work.

Sarah Palin is libertarian on about 80 to 90% of the issues. She qualifies way more than is required by the libertarian label. Anyone who scores above 65/65 on the Nolan Chart test is a “libertarian.” Her score is about 85/85.

Sarah Palin qualifies on the associations and affiliations leg of the libertarian stool. She has attended a number of Libertarian Party meetings in Alaska. Her husband was a dues-paying member for many years of the Alaska Independence Party, which was founded by Libertarian Party members in the 1980s. She publicly embraced the Libertarian Party in the final days of her election for Governor in 2006.

Finally, Sarah Palin has greatly assisted the entire libertarian movement by popularizing the libertarian term nationwide and in the media. We libertarians are extremely proud to have our label associated with such an attractive and prominent spokesperson as Sarah Palin.

So, in sum she gets a:

B+

A-

B+

on the libertarian scale. She’d get a straight A on the 2nd one if she herself was a dues-paying member of the LP, but there’s no evidence that she ever joined the Party with a $25.00 contribution unfortunately.

She is not a Purist fanatical libertarian, for sure. But she’s WELL WITHIN, the spectrum of moderate to conservative libertarian. Much like Tom McClintock of California, Butch Otter of Idaho, and Jeff Flake of Arizona.

You’re looking at the guy who got Ron Paul elected in Congress first time in 1996….
There are two other things that matter when judging whether someone is a libertarian or not, and all three are of equal importance:

Associations and affiliations.

In that case, your guy Ron Paul has a lot to answer for for his periodic associations with and acceptance of endorsements and funding from Stormfront and other racists over the last two decades.

Sarah Palin is libertarian on about 80 to 90% of the issues. She qualifies way more than is required by the libertarian label.

Once again, you claim special personal authority as the only basis for your assertions, but you fail to provide any specific evidence to prove your assertions true. I call BS on your claim that Palin’s positions are 80-90% libertarian until you can specify the EXACT policy statements from Palin that prove that true.

Her husband’s association with a secessionist party is hardly in your favor. First, it proves nothing about HER beliefs, it only provides a tentative and ultimately inconclusive indication of HIS beliefs. Unless you believe husbands control their wives’ political beliefs, your evidence regarding Todd Palin is simply irrelevant and is yet again an attempt to provide poor quality indirect evidence to cover up your complete lack of direct evidence in the form of Palin’s OWN statements. Second, association with a secessionist party is not what I think is going to provide a good foundation for appeal as a leader of a Republican revival. Perhaps you have forgotten that this is the PARTY OF LINCOLN we are talking about. Secessionist associations is a very poor fit.

Keep trying, though. You are providing an excellent demonstration of the continuing weakness of your position. If your claims were true, it would be easy for you to provide quotations from Sarah Palin herself as evidence. Your failure to do so after repeated requests and your persistence in trying to assert bizarre claims of personal authority (i.e. your “I was actually in Alaska…” claim to authority unwittingly imitates Tina Fey’s satirical “I can see Russia from my house!”) and citation of increasingly remote and irrelevant forms of indirect evidence is strong proof that you just don’t have the evidence you need to prove your claims to be true.

Sarah Palin may be a charismatic and relatively non-aggressive representation of social conservatism, but I don’t think anyone is going to be fooled into seeing her as a champion of basic libertarian principles of personal autonomy as long as she continues to support government infringements on personal autonomy in the form of a continuing drug war and use of government power to implement some various religious principles with regards to abortion, gay marriage, etc. And I do like her approach to fiscal issues.

So, I am willing to be convinced that I am wrong IF you can provide actual quotes FROM HER that indicate that she does not prioritize social conservatism over principles personal autonomy. But given your testimony of your longstanding association and involvement with libertarianism, I think that if you are unable to provide those direct quotations FROM HER, that is conclusive proof that no such evidence exists and that you are just spinning.