Posted under Conservatism & Election 2012 & Sarah Palin
Palin will not be attending CPAC this year. Is it because CPAC is allowing the John Birch Society to co-sponsor the event, and she doesn’t want to be tainted? This article suggests that, although it doesn’t really ring true to me. Palin wasn’t concerned about taint in the past when she addressed the Alaska Libertarian Party for example. In fact, her willingness to do so contributed to her outsider image. If this is true, I suspect she has some handlers who have a visceral reaction to the JBS whispering in her ear. Or maybe she has some personal grudge against David Keene and/or CPAC based on their past differences and various explanations are being floated. (See my comments below the AmSpec article.)
While I don’t have much use for the John Birch Society’s conspiratorial orientation, they have long been rock solid on the issues. They are consistently constitutionalist, unlike most of the advocacy groups that make up Conservative Inc. which are politically pragmatic, certainly not strict constitutionalists, and overly deferential to the GOP in their perspective. I will take conspiracy theorist true constitutionalists over non-conspiracy theorist “mainstream” conservatives any day of the week.
Has the JBS sponsored CPAC in the past? Is this a new development? If so, Keene deserves praise for allowing this once pariah group (after one of Buckley’ famous “purges”) back in the good graces of the “movement.” And if this is really one of Palin’s justifications, then she needs to seriously reconsider. The JBS has more support on the activist “far” right than she might realize.
Chris Hewlett on 08 Jan 2010 at 9:53 pm #
I like Sarah Palin alot but I fear she just is not Right enough. I do not have faith that she can withstand the liberal sirens in DC. Going to DC – in any capacity – will ruin her.
Sean Scallon on 08 Jan 2010 at 9:58 pm #
Chuckle, chuckle, chuckle. So the lady who made the welcoming address to the Alaskan Secession Party now will not be seen in polite company with the Birchers. My only question is who got to her, Bill Kristol or Fred Malek?
Get ready for more balancing acts like this one Sarah Plain and Tall.
Patroon on 08 Jan 2010 at 10:35 pm #
I will say this about the Birchers, the early Birch movement did turn into a “cult” around Robert Welch and were conspiratorial but they’ve dropped a lot that rhetoric and have focused their energies around the promotion of constitutional government.
RedPhillips on 08 Jan 2010 at 11:17 pm #
Wow. Palin sure does stir up the passions. The AmSpec thread has fast become unmanageable. (I was hoping Beckwith would reply.) One thing that is notable is the utter cluelessness of some of the commenters. Some Palin detractors who consider the Alaska Independence Party affiliation a slur pointed out the fact of her husband’s past association with the party and Palin’s past video address to the party, and Palin supporters accused them of spreading vicious rumors and wanted to see links to these well documented and well known facts.
The shallowness of some of the Palin supporters is amazing. First of all, why is the AIP stuff a slur instead of a recommendation? Second of all, catch yourself up on the facts of the candidate you so rabidly support.
This episode reminds me of why I used to like and have hope for Palin, and how much she has sold out for mainstream respectability. The problem is she has renounced or downplayed these past associations, not that they were ever there.
RedPhillips on 08 Jan 2010 at 11:20 pm #
Also, note the hostility of some toward Keane and CPAC. And this is not hostility from the left or anti-movement paleo right. It is from the Palin supporters. Is this all about CPAC and Keane dissing Palin in the past? I think Keane is a Romney man.
What the Palin supporters don’t realize is how cookie-cutter movement con their savior has become. This is all about identity politics (she is one of us) and not issues.
Kirt Higdon on 09 Jan 2010 at 2:59 pm #
The JBS had and has its faults, but does great work in exposing the conspiracies within the ruling establishment. In a sense politics is the very art of conspiracy. Conspiratorial interpretations of history admit the presence of both evil and human free will. On the other hand, there are the explanations that things “just happen” or are the result of great “historic forces” which just carry human actors along. It is these explanations which should be rejected. I do think some criticism of the JBS is warranted for occasional over-analysis and (especially under Robert Welch) for seeking a sort of unified field theory of conspiracies, a way of folding all conspiracies into one big one.
Full disclosure – I formerly belonged to the JBS, was even a chapter leader for a short time. I left under good terms to concentrate on raising a family. I recently attended a local meeting and considered re-joining. The local members are very good people and I joined them in some anti-Fed demonstrations and anti-bailout lobbying. But I ultimately decided that I would rather use my time helping out in the RCIA (adult conversion) program and Bible study program at my local parish church.
Sean Scallon on 09 Jan 2010 at 4:35 pm #
“This episode reminds me of why I used to like and have hope for Palin, and how much she has sold out for mainstream respectability. The problem is she has renounced or downplayed these past associations, not that they were ever there.”
Agreed. In fact I was thrilled that Palin was willing to address the AIP because it showed to me a political dynamism that was willing to cut outside traditional lines and borders. A true decentralist.
Now she’s becoming typical. Conservative INC. sees her as money making vehicle and the neocons see her as the root to power. It the same with her Buchanan support, trying to pretend, like Peter, “I never knew him.”