Sarah Palin's Career Ends in Tragedy
When a decent person accepts a job such as vice president, our first instinct is to celebrate that good people are in a position of power and influence. This is what McCain is counting on. But this is an illusion. The influence runs completely the other way. Good people become part of the party machine and surrender all their principles in order to survive. This, sadly, is the future of Sarah Palin, who may have been doing some good in Alaska. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (26)
The problem I have with this post is that it makes the study of the political process meaningless since the outcome is, as Mr. Rockwell seems to believe, predetermined. This historicist-minded thinking is dangerous because it suggests that the choices of individuals and the institutional structures to which they give rise are insignificant in the political process.
Published: September 2, 2008 1:42 AM
Dear Lew (in case you read these blog entries),
Setting aside the philosophical differences between Palin and Ron Paul and assuming, as your article seems to say, that Sarah Palin has good political positions, how is it that it is okay to support Ron Paul for President in the Republican primaries (which I believe you have done), but not okay on principle to support Palin for Vice President? Would you have supported Ron Paul for Vice President?
I am not asking these questions rhetorically to make a point - I would really like to know where you draw the line here and what factors you think are involved in that judgement. Is it merely the difference between the presidential role and the subordinate vice presidential role, is it something wrong with Palin, or is it something else?
Published: September 2, 2008 4:38 AM
Comparing Sarah Palin to Ron Paul is, in my opinion, doing a disservice to Ron Paul. In a questionnaire, Palin approved the words “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance because she supports our Founding Fathers. Since when was Eisenhower a Founding Father? Even more ironic is the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a “socialist minister” in the late 1800s.
Unfortunately, Palin seems to be one step away from a Jerry Springer episode. I don’t think she is an asset to McCain, in fact I think elite/educated Republicans are disgusted by her appointment; the only people left to vote for McCain are Evangelical “God & gun clingers”.
Palin may have a libertarian streak to her, but she is no Ron Paul. This race is over.
Published: September 2, 2008 6:40 AM
It is fatalistic articles like this that cry against modern Austrian economists. If it were not for Mises and the host of other brilliant thinkers I would leave Mr. Rockwell to his sad, angry, hopeless life. But there is Mises and there is Hayek and there are others, the true Austrians.
Published: September 2, 2008 10:29 AM
"This historicist-minded thinking..."
FAIL. You're not getting it at all.
Pointing out the fact that principles have consequences is not "historicist-minded thinking". It's a simple matter of pointing out reality.
Published: September 2, 2008 11:04 AM
I think "fatalist" is the absolute wrong word to describe Rockwell's article. He's just pointing out that being a bit player at the highest levels of an immoral system is a very poor way of trying to undermine that system.
As to why Paul's campaign made sense:
Paul was running for President, the person with all the power, not VP.
Paul ran his own campaign and engineering his own message, Palin is just an add-on to McCain's campaign and he will set the message.
It was known, I think, that Paul would lose. This freed him to provide an eloquent defense of a consistent libertarianism. Palin is in no such position.
Paul is very well steeped in libertarianism and Austrian economics, Palin is not. Thus, he knew the answer to hard questions and could defend liberty in a way that Palin couldn't.
Published: September 2, 2008 11:25 AM
I think "fatalist" is the absolute wrong word to describe Rockwell's article. He's just pointing out that being a bit player at the highest levels of an immoral system is a very poor way of trying to undermine that system.
As to why Paul's campaign made sense:
Paul was running for President, the person with all the power, not VP.
Paul ran his own campaign and engineering his own message, Palin is just an add-on to McCain's campaign and he will set the message.
It was known, I think, that Paul would lose. This freed him to provide an eloquent defense of a consistent libertarianism. Palin is in no such position.
Paul is very well steeped in libertarianism and Austrian economics, Palin is not. Thus, he knew the answer to hard questions and could defend liberty in a way that Palin couldn't.
Published: September 2, 2008 11:27 AM
Palin is against gay marriage and is pro-life (anti-abortion). Ron Paul,although personaly not in favour of abortion,does not want the Fedral Govt to decide this issue.
Simply because she supposedly was in support of Ron Paul ,does not make her a stand in for Ron Paul.
Sarah Palin is just a political pawn used by McCain to gather all the leftover Hillary supporters;since he thinks that Hillary supporters just want to see a woman in the White house, irrespective if they agree with her policies or not,and Palin is in disagreement with most of them.
But I agree with Rockwell that Palin would simply become another brick in McCain's wall,if they win.If she sould so easily be convinced to take the role of the VP,when 17 year old daughter's pregnancy (in short ,her private life)would be media fodder(as it already is),then she can very well be an apologist for any future monstrosity conducted by the McCain administration,
Published: September 2, 2008 1:19 PM
If nothing else, she's inspired this site:
http://www.vpilf.com/
Made my whole freakin' month.
Published: September 2, 2008 2:41 PM
One of the names not mentioned by Lew is Dana Rohrabacher. Dana was close to Robert LeFevre in the late 1960s/early 1970s, and I was acquainted with him. When his positions have come to my attention they have generally been in contradiction to what we both believed back then. In a response to an e-mail from me (when I lived in his district) he explicitly said the had discarded his idealism for practicality. I think he just realized that he would have a bigger audience in politics.
Published: September 2, 2008 3:36 PM
Philosophy, philosophy. It's called philosophy for a reason.
Bottom line:
McCain’s choice is extremely irresponsible. He has chosen a bible thumping partially experienced politician for all the wrong reasons; political pawn, vote grabber, T&A cover model and others. Reminds me of an old episode of The Brady Bunch, when Craig was chosen as a pop-start just because he fit the “Jacket”. Well, now it’s the bra.
Through this choice he has placed his concerns in front of the American people and it has resulted in turning the election into a true media circus with drunken clowns (I hate clowns) and all. I heard they had to cancel the GOP clown loaded VW that was due to appear on stage because of the storm….
There is no way on this green (well patchy a best) earth that she could run the United States if the old man runs into health trouble; even with the most competent staff to keep her on her feet. In addition, she will be seen as weak by our enemies and many allies and it will hurt our ability to posture and get things done (as if it wasn’t damaged enough already by Bush).
The GOP should come down on McCain like a ton of bricks. I like McCain (to clarify: I liked him before he became a Bush carbon copy), but he has really messed this one up. Furthermore, she would have done more to advance women in politics if she would have adamantly rejected the offer on grounds that woman are not to be used as political pawns. In essence she has sold woman across America out to the GOP.
Nice move Sarah.
What’s next, turning Alaska into a sovereign nation?
Published: September 2, 2008 3:47 PM
Rockwell's article is fatalist because taken to its logical conclusion no one can be a part of government without being part of the problem. That means that there can never be a solution. That is a fatalist position.
Published: September 2, 2008 4:34 PM
What’s next, turning Alaska into a sovereign nation?
I say good luck and Godspeed. And Hawaii too. And Puerto Rico, whether they want it or not.
Published: September 2, 2008 4:44 PM
I agree with Lew about Palin, but I will make a point which he missed and which is crucial.
Ron Paul is disciplined, principled and has a solid ideological foundation for the concepts of liberty as can be demonstrated by his contributions to, and affiliation with the Mises institute.
Palin on the other hand has no such systematic foundations. Her Libertarian streak is due to every human being's natural inclination to be free. But because this hasn't been nurtured and reinforced by study in explicit Libertarian study, whatever streak she has, will be snuffed!
Published: September 2, 2008 6:06 PM
"Rockwell's article is fatalist because taken to its logical conclusion no one can be a part of government without being part of the problem. That means that there can never be a solution. That is a fatalist position."
Right, the solution will never come from a government.
Published: September 2, 2008 8:41 PM
Why would any mother want her teenage pregnant daughter to be the subject of ridicule and on every front page in America. does her craving for a political position outweigh her concern for her family?
Now we find out we know very little about this woman. I also think the Republicans know very little about her also.
Published: September 3, 2008 12:14 AM
Barbara
It is not Sarah Palin who put her daughter in the limelight, but the media and liberals who took a private matter that was of no concern to any of us and made it public. They made a mountain out of a molehill and then they manipulated you into blaming Sarah Palin.
It's politics as usual.
Published: September 3, 2008 1:20 AM
While it is true the media has put Palin's daughter in the "limelight", and the public is eating it up, Sarah Palin, being the mother, could have said, "No Thank You" to McCain, knowing full well what lay ahead for her daughter. After all, being pregnant at 17 outside the confines of marriage is, in itself enough of a major life changing event without being made a national spectacle. I wonder, now that Palin has entered the whirlwind of national politics how will she be able to manage her role of mother to a daughter in crisis?
As for the "family values" Palin espouses, IMHO she does not demonstrate those values. I see her more as a fly or moth being drawn to a destructive bright light dragging her family along...
That doesn't demonstrate to me the moral strength Palin will need to maintain her independent streak in the gladitorial arena of the Neocons...
She WILL be eaten alive and discarded once she serves "their" purposes.
Published: September 3, 2008 7:03 AM
Jeanne,
You don't realize it but you have taken up the sexist mantra of the media. Would you write the same post about Joe Biden because he choose to continue in politics while raising his sons? Would you condemn Biden because his son, Hunter, is involved in fraud? Perhaps if Biden had "said no to politics" and stayed at home barefoot and preg... well you get the picture. Leave your sexist sentiments at home please.
Published: September 3, 2008 8:09 AM
Jeanne,
As a woman, I can tell you that there will always be crises in everyone's lives. The liberal media is trying to intimidate Palin and manipulate you into changing your politics.
For far too long we have allowed the media to act as judge and jury in matters that are none of the public's business. It is time to take a stand against the media.
As far as the daughter goes, Palin is not a single mom. If elected, she has a husband who can look after things at home just as well as the First Ladies do. Or are you suggesting that men are incompetent? I suspect there might be one or two men around here who might disagree with you. As a matter of fact, I think that there might be more than a few single moms out there who manage to successfully raise their families under very trying circumstances.
You have to allow people to decide for themselves what they and their families can handle. Otherwise, we are behaving no better than an oppressive government.
Published: September 3, 2008 2:14 PM
John Brock
In addition, she will be seen as weak by our enemies and many allies and it will hurt our ability to posture and get things done
I don't think I want any President to "posture." My Merriam-Webster defines this as, "to assume an artificial or pretended attitude." The deeply held belief that we will perpetually be in conflict with other countries is self-fulfilling. The only thing I want my President to get done is to stop creating money and get out of the way businessmen and traders.
Published: September 3, 2008 3:50 PM
Our present day affliction of moral relativity continues to erode seriously and rapidly any respect America has in the world. Originally it was respected as a Constitutional Republic but the unConstitutional coup distorted and twisted that into a 'respect' (envy) as a fountain of materialism.
The White House will be continue to be seen as a place unlike every other house in a nation that has a decayed moral standard.
WIthout any moral standard to adhere to there will be no restraint on the totalitarian objectives of the unConstituional coup as it continues its pervasive empire building around the world.
I wrote a recent blog that strongly suggested that one important step towards eliminating moral relativity would be to abolish politcal parties!
Published: September 3, 2008 10:15 PM
Billy Beck said:"Pointing out the fact that principles have consequences is not "historicist-minded thinking". It's a simple matter of pointing out reality."
Exactly. Concise and well put.
To think otherwise is nihilism, it's to say "shit just happens". Yes, history is kaleidic (spelling?) to us, to some extent, because all we have are scraps of the facts. But theory when it is well formed, does not collapse because the input data turned out differently. No matter how many times you roll a 6-sided die, you'll never see a 7th face.
Published: September 4, 2008 2:13 AM
I've defended Palin's right as a woman to run as VP, because I was ticked about the sexist remarks.
Having done that, I was curious as to her position on foreign policy, and this video of her speaking to the members of her church seems to fill the bill. Another one who mixes church and state:
http://news.aol.com/elections/conventions/republicans/article/iraq-war-a-task-from-god-palin-said/159686
Published: September 4, 2008 8:21 AM
A letter from someone who has known Sarah Palin since 1992
From: http://my2bucks.wordpress.com/2008/09/02/a-letter-from-someone-who-has-known-sarah-palin-since-1992/
Also
http://www.washingtonindependent.com/3671/the-reform-candidate
This is a balanced and fascinating chronicle of Palin’s public service. I would strongly recommend that both conservatives and liberals read this. If fiscal conservatives think that she will help McCain get the economy because of her ‘executive’ experience you really NEED to read this. She left Wasila, a town with zero debt prior to her tenure as mayor, 22 million dollars in debt. Yikes. A McCain/Palin administration would truly be third term of Bush when it comes to a tanking economy.
The veep selection process demonstrates that a McCain vote in November is a vote for Captain Chaos. From Cowboy Bush to Chaos McCain. Run in the opposite direction America.
Published: September 4, 2008 2:27 PM
What I do not understand is why Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. would ever thought highly of Sarah Palin. A libertarian is one who is socially liberal (may or may not be personally liberal) but fiscally conservative. Sarah Palin on the other hand is socially conservative and fiscally liberal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA4Lq4SI8ko
Published: September 7, 2008 11:33 PM