Posted on 10/04/2009 12:13:44 PM PDT by Josh Painter
Sarah Palin enjoys considerable support among libertarian Republicans, and many libertarian independents are giving her a second look. Adam Brickley believes that the Sarah Palin John McCain scooped up out of Alaska to be his running mate was much more libertarian than the vice presidential candidate who had to support McCain's policy positions on the stump. What we are seeing now, says Brickley, is "more of the original, pre-McCain Sarah Palin":
"A lot has been said lately about the idea that Sarah Palin is positioning herself as a the libertarian in the 2012 field... This is exactly I have been saying for months, and exactly how I have seen a potential Palin run shaping up for years (VP run or no VP run)."Will Sarah Palin be able to bring libertarians and conservatives together to start rebuilding the coaltion that Ronald Reagan led to win two successive lopsided presidential election victories?
"So – that is my view of the brave new world of “Sarahtarianism” – which is really nothing more than the classic Sarah Palin finally emerging on the national stage. We’ll see just how libertarian she can get when we see her upcoming memoir Going Rogue, but I’m guessing that she will use that book to complete the transformation we’ve all been talking about."Some libertarians are still not comfortable with Palin, largely due to a perception that she is too close to the neoconservatives, as Phil Manger observed in an op-ed that was mostly supportive of the former governor:
"She was accompanied to Hong Kong by Randy Scheunemann, a foreign policy advisor to John McCain and advisor to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Scheunemann was also president of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an organization that beat the drums for the Iraq invasion. Palin's pre-McCain-campaign views on Iraq were not very clear, although I got the impression she was harboring some doubts. I worry that she might be taken over and 'managed' by neocons, like she was during the campaign."But it was in that same Hong Kong speech that Sarah Palin said some things which should go a long way to allay such fears, according to Allen Caeden:
"Sarah Palin deliberately took numerous swipes at neo-conservatism in her Hong Kong speech. She gave the finger to George Bush’s 'compassionate conservatism' by using the term 'common-sense conservative' to describe herself, and she flat out rejected the golden egg of neo-conservatism which is to spread democracy around the world; she stated unequivocally that this is not the job of the United States. This was two fingers held up at once; one to George Bush and the other to the neo-conservatives in the Beltway."Her exact words were:
"I am not talking about some U.S.-led 'democracy crusade.' We cannot impose our values on other counties. Nor should we seek to. But the ideas of freedom, liberty and respect for human rights are not U.S. ideas, they are much more than that."Sarah's publisher promises that in her forthcoming book Going Rogue, she will present "her vision for an America that is strong, independent, and free." Reagan conservatives and libertarians alike are waiting to see if that vision resonates in both camps. We're betting that it will.
- JP
Do nothing about anything ever, which is the core Libertine dogma, is not one that will ever win elections in the real world. It is a doctrine for comfortably middle class self absorbed single males, not serious adult minds.
It should be noted that she diverges from the “Neocons” on domestic and social issues. Her foreign policy is pro-freedom, “hawkish” (in the good sense), anti-Putin, anti-terrorist and would be called by some “Neocon”. That’s a good thing. If there was something right about “Neocons” it’s foreign policy. She’s no isolationist, non-interventionist paleo.
Just to avoid confusion over where she stands.
Correct. If she was to run as anything other than Republican it would definately not be Libertairan. Too many little boney critters in that closet. If anyting a new party based on conservatism but I feel she is the kind of person who can take the Republican party away from the Rinos just as she did in Alaska. Bold colors!
The term “neocons” seem to convey the image of liberal RINOs who seek and expanded federal govt. Anyone else see the similarity?
A lot of people would question that, and not just "isolationist, non-interventionist paleos."
They made some really serious miscalculations that hurt the country.
One reason not to get so enthusiastic about Palin is that, like Bush, she'd simply defer to the neocons on foreign policy.
Maybe if they really irritate her (and "they" is a confusing term here since the people who write about foreign policy and those who deal with domestic policy and social issues aren't the same people), that won't happen, but I wouldn't count on it.
Republicans are not doing anyone a favor by piling on with Demoncrats to trash Sarah Palin.
They don't because like Marxism, it is a ivory tower sort of ideology that can only work because it's adherents are protected by the very system they decry from ever having to actually live up to their self proclaimed dogmas.
She’s closer the the Founding Father’s principles than anything we’ve seen in decades in this country.
She is not a libertarian. She is a (small-ell) libertarian conservative. The differnces are significant - libertarian conservatives believe in small government, low taxes and fiscal responsibilty, as do Libertarians. But libertarian conservatives believe there should be some limits of personal liberties - they don’t support legalizing drugs, gay marriage, and some of the other more liberal social policies that many Libertarians do.
Libertarian conservatives also don’t support foreign policy adventurism, but they do believe in a strong defense and even taking proactive steps when real threats to the U.S. present themselves.
- JP
Hooah!
“Neocon” means a lot of things. On foreign policy it has come to mean pro-Israel, anti-Cremlin, anti-terrorist, pro-freedom (in the sense of aiding opponents of our enemies) and if needed unilateral US action.
This is also where Palin stands. One could also call it common sense, strong US foreign and defense policy.
Domestically the “Neocons” are indeed Democrat-lite RINOs ala Giuliani, Romney, Frum etc.
This of course is were she stands opposed to it.
You sure you don’t have that backwards? I’m all for the small government fiscal responsibility and low taxes, but also believe that with that comes freedom and personal responsibility, unlike the social conservatives who think the government ought to be our nanny.
I’ve been self-identifying as a small-l libertarian conservative for years now.
The term “neoconservatism” was coined by and adopted by former liberals who felt like they had been “mugged” by Islamic fascism.
Led by the late Irving Kristol, they remained liberal on social issues and had no problems at all with the growth of the federal government or with big spending.
“Neoconservatives” was a poor choice of a label for what essentially were hawkish liberals. They had much more in common with LBJ than with Ronald Reagan.
- JP
That President in question was Ronald Reagan.
The GOP still hasn’t closed its primaries.
Democrats will have say in the party’s nominee...again.
Virtually no one in the GOP has done anything to oppose 0bama, aside from Sarah Palin.
If the GOP nominates McCain, Romney, Gomer Pyle, or Guilianni again, I will not support it or them at all.
I will also not support Pawlenty as he believes in global warming and did not stand up against the fraudulent election of Franken.
I would support John Bolton,
And Sarah Palin.
That is all.
Reagan also had a Democrat Congress he was forced to work with, and the only way he could get anything he wanted, especially the military buildup and spending cuts the country needed at the time, was to deal with Tip O’Neil.
- JP
Bill Kristol is generally considered to be a neocon, does not take the positions you mention, and was one of Palin’s earliest backers.
The GOP types who oppose her tend to be the ones called ‘crunchy cons’ for some reason.
The common ground between Kristol, Scheunemann and Palin is primarily on foreign policy, which is IMO a good thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.