Saturday, May 28, 2011

If Sarah Palin gets the 2012 nomination . . .

. . . we’re fucked.  My heart sank when I heard that she might be seriously considering running for president.  Although I get that she is really good at stirring the pot and getting a lot of attention, I think she lacks the intelligence and prudence that makes a good president.  She is akin to Wendell Philips, or William Jennings Bryan: an agitator who will not be remembered in 50 years.

As I’ve said before, when she first came on to the scene with John McCain, I was genuinely excited.  Picking a woman for his running mate was a good political move.  Picking Sarah Palin was a bad political move, and that started to become apparent after the televised VP debate with Joe Biden.  Granted, Biden is a moron and sounded like a bumbling fool, but Palin showed herself to be woefully devoid of any substance beyond the standard talking points.

Palin is bad for the Republican party for several reasons.  The first being that she is not a candidate that comes even close to appealing to independents or politically moderate people.  There is virtually no chance that she will convince anyone other than a Republican to vote for her, and most Republicans would likely only vote for her out of principle (I, for example, could not vote for a Democrat in good conscience).

She’s simply too radical and too divisive.  She’s the type of politician that does not want to compromise, and this is not the time for such politics.  Americans are frustrated that nothing substantial is being done in DC, and they’re pissed that we can’t do something as simple as pass a fucking budget without endless partisan bullshittery.

This is the best we can do?
And it’s people like Palin that perpetuate the problem.  She’s not interested in the political process—making deals, prioritizing her policy goals and discerning which need to be sacrificed and which cannot be—she’s only interested in Sarah Palin.  She’s only interested in her own popularity and status as a demagogue.  She’s a polarizing figure, and she does not possess the necessary leadership qualities required to get two diametrically opposed parties to work together.

Palin is so polarizing that her presence would actually polarize the Republican Party itself.  Lambaste me all you want, but if she were to get the nomination I would just say “fuck it,” and abstain in 2012.  I know I always preach the “less worse,” doctrine, but her actually being elected would destroy the Republican Party, and it’s precisely because of how radical she is.  And I know I wouldn’t be the only Republican to say “fuck it,” in 2012.

As I’ve said in an article before, the problem with the Republican Party is that it’s gradually becoming more right wing as time goes on.  The thing is, however, that it’s not even a “good,” right wing.  I can get behind some Libertarian ideas, but the Tea Party is not Libertarian.  A good Libertarian, I think, doesn’t believe in contradictory crap.  If you believe in the freedom of choice, then you have to believe that women have the right to choose whether or not to keep a pregnancy, even if you think it’s morally wrong.  If you believe that “all men are created equal,” then you probably shouldn’t shit allover people of other cultures simply because they’re not Christian or weren’t born in America.

The pissed off face of an honest man.
So this brand of right-wing arch conservatism is not the kind we need.  Giving Palin the nod would only drive out moderate Republicans, like me, and then you’d be left with a party of radicals who will never win an election.  I actually kind of like guys like Ron Paul.  I think some of his policy ideas are a bit too far, but I agree with a lot of what he’s been saying.  He’s a guy that knows what he believes, and from what I’ve seen he doesn’t contradict himself often.  But can Ron Paul win a presidential election?  I don’t think so.

Hopefully this is just a horseshit ploy for her to become more famous, and she’s not actually seriously considering throwing her hat into the ring.  If that’s the case, then it would only confirm my suspicion that she would make an awful president.

I think I’ve pretty much given up hope on winning in 2012, but I am making this vow to all of my readers today: if Sarah Palin wins the nomination for 2012, I will declare my allegiance to the Republican Party officially dead.


TonyFernandez said...

I agree that the Tea Party is not libertarian, at least since Sarah Palin swooped in and stole it away from the libertarians. But I have just one issue. A good libertarian can be against abortion. If you see that embryo as a human life, then killing it is murder. You have a choice to murder adults, too, but it comes with a price. It's the same thing that I see with abortion. Abortion is not a hard and fast issue with libertarians. Government spending and monetary policy are, but not abortion.

Ron said...

I completely agree with this and especially the part about Ron Paul. I do like his politics too even if some his policy views go a little far.

He's the best chance we have and i'm afraid that the GOP probably won't even consider him and the "fan-types" of Sarah Palin would never vote for him. I see Obama probably getting a second term if anyone but Ron Paul becomes the GOP choice in 2012.

Jack Camwell said...

Well Tony, the way I see it is a lot like Ron Paul's view. I personally think that it is immoral in cases that do not involve rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life.

Like Ron Paul, however, I think that imposing that standard nationwide is bad policy. It really is none of our business why they're having the abortion, and I don't want to have government asking them about it.

Ron: thanks for stopping by. I totally agree with what you've said. Ron Paul is a fierce debator and I think he'd shred Obama head-to-head. But because he is practically a Libertarian, he wouldn't appeal to the middle very much, and winning the middle is what wins elections.