What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Another Gov. Palin urban legend doused: she was not a member of the Alaskan Independence Party

From John McCormack at the Weekly Standard blog:

In response to accusations that in the 1990s Sarah Palin was a member of the Alaskan Independence Party - a third party that seeks a vote on making Alaska a sovereign state - the McCain campaign has provided records showing that Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982.

Jake Tapper has updated his post on Palin and the AIP with this response from the McCain campaign:

[McCain spokesman Brian] Rogers says the McCain campaign provided ABC News with all the voter registration information that exists. Rogers says that Palin didn’t attend the AIP convention in 1994, "but she visited them when they had their convention in Wasilla in 2000 as a courtesy since she was mayor."

He would not comment as to why AIP officials are so convinced Palin was a member of their party. When asked if Palin ever identified herself as a member of the AIP, Rogers said, "No, she's a lifelong Republican."

Given that Pat Buchanan's claim that Palin was a "brigader" for him has been proven false, wouldn't it make sense to be a little skeptical of minor political figures trying to attach themselves to Gov. Palin's rising star from here on out?

If the Left Wing smear machine wants to play the guilt by association card with the bottom of the Republican ticket--which is apparently what they are attempting to do--the top of the Democratic ticket is a royal flush: Ayers, Rezko, Pfleger, Wright, and Dohrn. Remember, for every full disclosure on Gov. Palin, including documents such as her voting registration, something of equal value will be asked of Senator Obama. Every time the Dems up the ante for Gov. Palin, the GOP will raise them one Obama.

As I said before, this is starting to feel more and more like a Wellstone funeral.

(cross-posted)

Comments (20)

"Remember, for every full disclosure on Gov. Palin, including documents such as her voting registration, something of equal value will be asked of Senator Obama."

Dr. Beckwith, I think this is much too optimistic of you. We know full well the double standard that exists for liberals. Free passes abound.

she was not a member of the Alaskan Independence Party

Involuntary chuckle as a reaction to that title. Otherwise known as "LOL!"

Anyway, why don't they just get it over with and accuse her of a Pythian Sister plot to poison the village well?

Francis,

1. I hope that you are enjoying your time at my alma mater thus far.

2. I don't know that being accused of belonging to the AIP is a smear; in fact, I think it would have been pretty cool of her.

I second Nathan P. Origer.

The sad thing is that this could be considered a "smear."

To bad I was hoping she was. I wonder why that should be a smear also.

"I second Nathan P. Origer.

The sad thing is that this could be considered a "smear.""


From the Alaskan INDEPENDENCE Party web page.

"The Alaskan Independence Party can be summed up in just two words:

ALASKA FIRST!"

A couple of points here:

We know that her husband was a member of AIP for quite a few years. Be honest, if it turned out that Michelle Obama (or Bill Richardson's wife, should he have won the Democratic nomination) was, or recently had been, a member of a separatist political party, what would your reaction be? What sort of posts would we have on W4?

Formal membership may be irrelevant. Inquiring minds may be interested in this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NK2sFJebGc

N.B. the use of the word "infiltrate" just after the 8:30 mark.

To resolve this, three questions must be asked of Ms Palin:

"Are you now or have you ever been supportive of the goals of the AIP?" and "If yes, which ones?"

"Is Alaska first for you?"

"We know that her husband was a member of AIP for quite a few years. Be honest, if it turned out that Michelle Obama (or Bill Richardson's wife, should he have won the Democratic nomination) was, or recently had been, a member of a separatist political party, what would your reaction be? What sort of posts would we have on W4?"

I might like Obama a bit more. I'm not a huge McCain fan, and likely will cast my vote for Barr; maybe Baldwin. Alaska isn't first for me, but Indiana is, and Alaska should be first for Alaskans. We must, I believe, tend to the needs of the local, and the regional, first, if we even can hope to tend properly to the national.

American electoral politics continually reminds me that I am not entirely on anyone's side because no one is entirely on my side. I find it entirely foreign to view supporting Patrick J. Buchanan as a bad thing, or to see some kind of scandal in an Alaskan having sympathy with the sentiments "ALASKA FIRST!"

When both party view your "pros" as "cons," it is quite easy to see why we are to place no trust in princes.

The problem Nathan is that was the Calhoun view and that didn't turn out so well. Local first always stopped making sense when we passed the band stage. There is a certain sense in which putting ones country first rises to high principle but "Indiana first" means the rest of the world last and that seems problematic.

It is probably desirable that folks running for a given office run on issues with which they would have to deal. For example, in a perfect world, a candidate for mayor of a small town would be expected to run on local issues. A candidate who campaigned on their religion and issues way beyond the scope of the office sought would be properly viewed with suspicion and rejected by the voters.

There is a certain sense in which putting ones country first rises to high principle but "Indiana first" means the rest of the world last and that seems problematic.

Why is it problematic? How does my relationship with the rest of the world make it due more from me than my country? And how does my relationship with the rest of my country make it due more from me than my state, my home town or my family? I need a good reason why weaker and more abstract relationships justly demand more duties and claim more rights from me than stronger and more concrete ones.

You lay out a hierarchy I never asserted and which makes no sense. Family is poorly defined in our culture anyway and outside the bounds of the discussion. Hometown is meaningless for most of us and state for many of us. All are abstractions - some long dead white men drew some lines - whoopee.

Current levels of organization create a real national interest which properly understood, and with the proddingt of our better angels, works out to the best interests of the world.

Al:

You [Brendon] lay out a hierarchy I never asserted and which makes no sense.
It is called 'subsidiarity'; and it is quite natural for human beings, who are by their nature social animals born into and living within a particular social context involving particular natural loyalties and obligations. True, this is a problem for the modern man who views himself as a free and equal superman; as emancipated from history, nature and tradition; as self-created through reason and will; as held back from final emancipation only by the oppression of the backward untermensch.

The problem is that the modern vision of the ubermensch is just false. Real people aren't that way, and shouldn't be that way, and most sane ones don't want to be that way. The vision of the new man, emancipated from history and nature, self-created through reason and will, is an ultimately self-liquidating vision. (Of course in practice it also tend to be pretty hard on the untermensch -- in our case the unborn, the feeble, the old, etc).

Gosh, way over my head. I just meant that postulating a hierarchy that starts with the family and goes from there isn't too workable in a society that is largely neolocal, highly mobile and where most of us live in metropolital areas where interest and governance are often detached except at the national level.

All I meant is that, at this point in history, the notion that such a hierarchy informs one in any consistent manner as to public policy doesn't work too well.

Our capacity to form loyalties is natural (save for the sociopaths amongst us) as is our ordering of those loyalties . There is nothing natural about the content of the hierarchies that result.

Al,

I believe Zippy was elaborating what Brendon was attempting to lay out for your benefit.

It is, properly speaking, "subsidiarity" and not "hierarchy".


Here, allow me to illustrate how egregiously mistakened your verbiage happens to be:

hierarchy: a ruling body of clergy organized into orders or ranks each subordinate to the one above it

subsidiarity: a principle in social organization: functions which subordinate or local organizations perform effectively belong more properly to them than to a dominant central organization


Quite a difference in terms, no?

Sorry, but you guys played the "guilt by association" card first. If your only defense to criticisms of Palin is "but look what we said six months ago about Wright!" then...well, you probably should've left it alone in the first place.

Sorry Ari but subsidiarity is implicit in my post. There is no hint of subsidiarity in Brendon's post. All I see is language that orders polities on a basis that seems to have no relationship to efficiency.

Hierarchy can refer to the ordering of persons, places, or things. I prefer Hubbard squash to Butternut and Butternut to Banana. Presto, we have a hierarchy of squashes.

Let us not forget the context here. You may find high principle in the AIP thing but you might want to check out the video in which the party's representative speaks of the desirability of infiltrating the major parties and reflect on the words of the party's founder, Joe Vogler:

"The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government. And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home."

“I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.”

There is a significant chance that, should he be elected, John McCain will be unable to finish his first term It is almost a slam dunk that he will be a one term president. If the spouse of a candidate for any major office in, say, California had belonged to a political party like AIP, it would be a problem

:

:

Al,

My comments were specifically in regards to Zippy's comment.

Nowhere in it is there any allusion toward a high regard for AIP or any such thing.

"...a hierarchy that starts with the family and goes from there isn't too workable in a society that is largely neolocal, highly mobile and where most of us live in metropolital areas where interest and governance are often detached except at the national level."

Isn't it more accurate to say that those who are incapable of honoring their primary commitments are completely incapable of self-governance?

I'm not sure if mobility as experienced in America, is a cause, or consequence of our anomie, but many freely choose a disordered life of restless enstrangement and detachment. Modern wanderlust does not appear to be a social construct imposed on the unwilling, but atomization might be.

At any rate, anyone hoping to act in "the best interests of the world" can only do so through service within their own homes and local communities. Anything else is a perverse inversion of the natural ordering of society and bound to lead to a cultural breakdown.

All I see is language that orders polities on a basis that seems to have no relationship to efficiency.

Well that's good, since I am not interested in ordering things based upon efficiency but rather in ordering them based upon justice. That should be obvious, since I spoke of what is due to another, i.e. of duties, and duty is a matter of justice.

Well said Brendon. It should be noted that not only is efficiency a secondary goal, it is rarely attainable through large, distant institutions. And when it is, it comes with hard, impersonal edges.

After watching Obama's speech last week and the GOP tonight, secession, at least from the Big Top, should appeal to any morally sane person. The conventions with their Leni Riefenstahl stagecraft, Orwellian oratory, venomous, demagogic outbursts, and frenzied sign-waving, makes me wonder if mass man can remain free and self-governing.

Get involved in one's small corner of the world, relate to our neighbors as actual human beings not as icons, or symbols, and avoid the cancer eating away at the center of modern politics. Something dehumanizing ravages even the best of people when they enter its vortex.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.