Palin is now free to exercise her real power

The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.

Like virtually all political observers, I was at first surprised by Governor Palin's decision to hand the reins of Alaska governance over to Lieutenant Governor Parnell. On the national stage, it sent the entirety of the political and chattering classes hurtling into the air like a flock of geese flushed by a hunter, flapping wildly and honking their displeasure. Palin's announcement, made by the shore of Lake Lucille far from the centers of national power and culture, knocked Michael Jackson's death and the President's Russian visit out of the headlines for days, and sent network talking heads scurrying for their travel agents to book flights to Anchorage.

On the tube, in print, on talk radio and in the blogosphere, we were treated to an endless parade of pundits offering opinions. The same people who have been telling us since last fall that "Palin is finished, she has no future in national politics" were now saying "Okay, now she is really finished -- I mean it this time!" Political consultants who spent the last days of the 2008 political campaign telling us that the governorship of Alaska was an insignificant job not suitable to prepare a person for the office of Vice President, and who undoubtedly giggled behind their hands when then-Senator Obama referred to Palin as "The Mayor of Wasilly," suddenly were insisting that she was abandoning a critical post.

Alaskan critics -- in the press, local politics, and the blogosphere -- who had worked tirelessly to cripple even routine functions of the Palin Administration were suddenly tsk-tsking with concern and disappointment that Palin had "let them down." In most cases, notably among the Alaskan progressive blogosphere, the "disappointment" carried a heavy undertone of schadenfreude and self-congratulation. The national press went straight back to the same old Alaskan figures it has always relied on as foils to Palin -- French, Kerttula, Ramras, Gara, Hawker, Persily -- presenting their opinions as representative of ordinary Alaskans.

Speculation raged about her real motivations. In a notable nadir for cable news, Rick Sanchez of CNN opined that she must be pregnant again. Nearly everyone in the Beltway projected their own motivations onto her; politicos framed the debate in terms of her political future, consultants framed it in terms of book deals and paid speaking engagements, TV hosts framed it in terms of Palin herself joining their ranks. Others, encouraged by some particularly vile rumors created on the left side of the blogosphere, insisted that there simply HAD to be a huge scandal about to hit. After all, everyone knows that you only release news on a Friday to bury it! In the meantime, this "buried" news of her resignation was burning up every news source in the country.

More importantly, the news was burning up the venue in which Palin's core of supporters and advocates resides -- the conservative blogs. And it was the subject of endless discussion in the places where her national constituency gather and live...at backyard Fourth of July barbeques, in the bleachers at Little League baseball games, at small-town fireworks displays, in the kitchens and around the dining tables of family gatherings over the holiday weekend. These are people who don't obsessively follow politics, but are beginning to awaken with a deep sense of disgust for the condition of our national political discourse...and an equally deep sense of disgust for the politicians of both parties that have brought us here, and for the media that enabled them. To these folks, who often refer to Palin as "Our Sarah," each attack by the Beltway class simply slaps another layer of concrete on their support for her.

Along with most of those Palin supporters, I didn't need to speculate about some hidden Machiavellian reason for her resignation. Unlike the national punditocracy, I'd actually been following what Governor Palin had been doing in Alaska since her return from the campaign. And after overcoming the initial surprise and actually listening to her speech, I understood and agreed with her.

In our jaded and cynical times, we expect politicians to speak in the language of vagueness and spin, making it necessary to sift through endless verbal dross to find nuggets of truth. But Palin speaks plainly, and spoke clearly about her reasons in her Friday announcement, reasons both personal and political. They included facts that are beyond dispute - her children have been the subject of the most savage attacks in the history of modern politics. She's been subjected to a barrage of frivolous legal complaints that placed her family in deep debt and bogged down the mechanisms of state government. This has been accomplished with the cooperation of a complicit press that gave a pulpit to every one of her enemies, while denying her the opportunity to present her own defense.

If Palin were truly the power-hungry, narcissistic backwoods grifter that her opponents eagerly attempt to portray her as, she would have stayed in office and enjoyed the title and the perks. (Such perks that remain - after all, she got rid of the state jet, the Governor's chef, turned in the state SUV in order to drive her own Jetta, and slashed her expenses to a small fraction of her predecessors'.) She could have coasted along as a do-nothing Governor - making no waves, introducing no controversial legislation, keeping the legislature happy by obtaining as much vote-buying pork for them as possible, and acceding to the wishes of their corporate and union campaign donors. But Palin is not the type to be a do-nothing Governor, she has a vision for Alaska - a vision that includes a major role as a source of energy for the nation, a strategic role in national defense, and local destiny in the hands of the people, not far away in Washington.

But Palin can no longer achieve that vision as Alaska's chief executive. I've watched her try heroically since her return from the campaign trail. As she gave only a handful of interviews to the national press, Alaskan critics accused her of seeking the spotlight. As she practically glued herself to Alaska, leaving only for a few short trips, she was excoriated for "abandoning the state." Her admirable work in obtaining charitable assistance for economically suffering Western Alaska villages, and in facilitating employment for their residents, was thrown back in her face by critics who insisted that federal handouts were the only way to really help. And the drumbeat of frivolous complaints continued in the background, eating up the time and resources of her staff and the financial resources of the state - while legislators actually complained in the press that she no longer brought them bagels.

The only choice left to her, if she truly wanted to see her vision for Alaska carried forward, was to pass the ball to a teammate. To continue the work she's started, work that will continue past the end of her term in 2010, she had to put that teammate in a better position to win the 2010 gubernatorial election. By passing to Parnell now, and giving him time to establish himself as a leader with the people of Alaska, she greatly improved his chances.

Palin's power now lies in her role as a spokeswoman, an advocate, a symbol. Like it or not, she is now the most famous Alaskan ever to have lived - a situation likely to continue through our lifetimes. She has never failed to advocate for Alaska and its future, and I'm certain that she will continue to do so in whatever role she plays on the national stage.

And what of that national role? There is a deep fracture in the Republican Party; this is a situation that anyone can see. Palin didn't cause it, but she has come to symbolize it...because she is loved by the grassroots of the party, and that same grassroots has come to despise the party leadership. While professional GOP politicians in Washington engage in games of incumbency, triangulation, and vote-buying, conservatives across the country have never given up searching for another Reagan - a conservative politician who can imbue optimism, carry forward a message of pride in our country, strong national defense, and fiscal conservatism - thus reuniting the traditional factions of the party. Many already believe that Palin is that person, and will accept no substitute.

Sarah Palin already has the power to destroy the GOP, simply by taking her constituency off the field with her. That's why I've always viewed the attacks on her by other GOP politicos to be colossally stupid - especially given the fact that she strictly obeys Reagan's Eleventh Commandment and never herself criticizes another national Republican figure. But her power base also gives her the ability to remake the party, and apparently this is the role she has chosen. By using the financial resources, volunteers, and bully pulpit that she can command, she can shape the candidates and the message for the conservative movement. And this is a role in which national Democrats should fear her, not some purely speculative 2012 or 2016 presidential run.

It's going to be fascinating watching her on the battlefield, free of the constraints of both Alaskan state politics and the incompetent McCain campaign. I can't wait.

"Sarah Palin already has the power to destroy the GOP, simply by taking her constituency off the field with her. That's why I've always viewed the attacks on her by other GOP politicos to be colossally stupid - especially given the fact that she strictly obeys Reagan's Eleventh Commandment and never herself criticizes another national Republican figure."

To those psuedo-intellectuals out there, labeled as both "liberal" and "conservative': Take note of the above-stated observation!

None of us who use plain old American common sense in evaluating the words and actions of those we meet had any trouble at all understanding Palin last week. On the other hand, those who define good oratory by the standards used to evaluate the now President (both "conservative" and "liberal") apparently are having a terrible time with interpreting her speech. She speaks quickly, with a decided regional flavor, sometimes sounds breathless, and says what she means.

He, on the other hands, uses his voice slowly and deliberately, in measured tones, with head lifted high, and his meaning only can be understood days, weeks, months (perhaps even years) afterward when his actions reveal what he intended to say. Good oratorical style? Maybe.

Plain spoken Sarah (though rushed, colloquial, and repetitious sometimes) may not be the darling of the media, the feminist pretenders (yes, pretenders, for while they spout equality for women, she lives it), and an assortment of political pundits from both political parties and others who fancy themselves as intellectual giants may have trouble with evaluating her actions, but ordinary folks will cut right through the style and see substance. Bet on it!

By the way, those same folks would have trouble with Congressman Davy Crockett's speech, reprinted below, inasmuch as his dialect and plainspoken style would be intolerable to most. Yet, understanding it could cure most of our problems today.

"David Crockett

(Congressman 1827-31,1833-35)

   "One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:
   "'Mr. Speaker - I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.
   "Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."
   He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.
   Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

   "Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them.   The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief.   We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.
   "The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up.   When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road, I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.
   "I began: 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and - '
   "'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again''
   “This was a sockdolager .. I begged him to tell me what was the matter.
   "'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth-while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest....But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'
   " 'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question'
   ,,'No, Colonel, there is no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'
   "'Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

  "'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in this country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000.00. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports to be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.
   "'So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.''
   "I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him-
    “Well, my, friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot'
     "He laughingly replied- 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgement of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'
    “If I don’t,' said I, 'I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it ''
   "'No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, some and to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you'
    "'Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-by. I must know your name'
    "'My name is Bunce.'
    "'Not Horatio Bunce?'
     “'Yes,
    "'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad to have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.’
    "It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.
   "At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.
   "Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before. I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the word - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying-

   " 'Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, have heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgement is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.'
   "I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying-
   "'And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.
   "'It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.'
   "He came upon the stand and said:
   " 'Fellow citizens - It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.'
   "He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.
    “'I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.
   "Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.
   "There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men - men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased -a debt which could not be paid by money - and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice, to obtain it."

Reprinted and excerpted from a book entitled, ”Our Ageless Constitution,” Part VIII, “The Ideas Of Liberty,” published by W. David Stedman Associates, 1987 (Bicentennial Edition), with permission of Foundation for Economic Education’s brochure entitled, “Not Yours To Give”).

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.