Curiouser And Curiouser

by hilzoy

Ben Smith in Politico:

"I can't remember the last introduction to the national scene this rocky, and it gets worse every hour — and even before the investigative reporters have settled in to Anchorage.

Just got off the flight to St. Paul to find, in my inbox: a second source confirming her past membership in a secession-minded fringe group, her lawyering up in an inquiry the AP slugged "Troopergate," and — insult to injury — another woman claiming she was actually Miss Congeniality in the Miss Wasilla '84 contest.

The name on the tongues of gleeful Dems, meanwhile: Eagleton."

TPM Election Central adds a few more bits like the fact that Palin "relied on an earmark system she now opposes", as well as supporting the Bridge to Nowhere before the funding was cut. Which, of course, means that when she said "I told Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that bridge to nowhere," she wasn't exactly telling the truth.

And besides all that, she was a Director of Ted Stevens' 527 corporation, and hired his former chief of staff as a lobbyist for Wasilla. (Question: why does such a small town need a lobbyist? "Of 149 incorporated places in Alaska, just six of them had paid registered lobbyists in 2002, including Wasilla, lobbying records show.")

Of these stories, Palin's past membership in the Alaskan Independence Party seems the most damaging to me. The Party's Introduction page has this quote from its founder:

"I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."

Its goal has its own separate page:

"The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.

The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler, that Alaskans achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, and promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences."

Here's its platform, and here are its statements on issues. Among its positions are the reclamation of all federal land through homesteading, the abolition of all property taxes, the prohibition of all bureaucratic regulations not expressly passed by the legislature, "the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts," and a host of other things. But their main goal is the vote on independence mentioned above, which should be "a true plebecite according to international law, only legal Alaskan citizens, it is in the language of the people, federal military and their dependants are not legal citizens and will not be allowed to vote in this plebescite." (So much for the right of military personnel to register to vote where they live, like the rest of us. Although since they don't spell out who counts as a "legal Alaskan citizen", maybe the rest of us wouldn't have the right to vote in the plebiscite either.)

On the Party's website, there's an article by Joe Vogler explaining what he thinks was wrong with the original vote by which Alaskans chose statehood. I got about halfway through it and became unable to read carefully (it's long, and not well-written.) If anyone makes it through, please feel free to correct the provisional opinion that follows. That said: as far as I can tell, this is one of those articles that voluble cranks write when they encounter something that sets them off. Documents are adduced, footnotes proliferate, there is every appearance of monstrous erudition, and yet the whole thing makes no sense. Reading it reminded me of the time I was at a survivalist convention (don't even ask), and someone tried to explain to me, in excruciating detail, why the entire income tax was illegitimate.

This is a nutty organization. It is, moreover, an organization whose founder took his views, and the Party's, to imply that he was not an American.

The McCain campaign has been more than willing to question Obama's patriotism on the basis of nothing at all. Yet when asked about Sarah Palin's past membership in a secessionist party, "a McCain spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment."

Comments

[russell]

My point is that, in spite of being subsidized by government, it’s a lot easier to imagine yourself as an individualist in Alaska than in other states, because you really do have to do a lot more for yourself.

I think this is common in very sparsely populated areas, regardless of the type of government they have. If you wait for help to arrive, you'll die first. You learn to do for yourself. That ethic is certainly common throughout northern New England.

That's sort of a different issue than how basic infrastructure and services are provided. The libertarian ideal, as I understand it, is strongly biased toward very small government, with very limited responsibility. If most of your infrastructure is publicly funded, whether through taxes or through income on publicly owned resources, you're not in a libertarian environment.

The issue is less who plows private walkways when it snows than it is who owns public facilities like roads, and how the construction of roads is funded.

For the record, I live about 15 miles from Boston, there are 20,000 people in my four square mile town, and I shovel my own walk. I do it by hand.

I believe the "public trust" concept originated in the common law and lead to such things as public ownership of waterways and such. Under that concept as I understand it, it is inherent in the people before gov't comes into the picture.

First, allow me to say that I'm all over the concept of the public trust. I'd love to see the enclosure laws overturned. You can fill in the blanks from there.

I guess I find the distinction between "common law" and "government" somewhat hard to see. Common law is a form of government. It occurs to me that what you object to might better be described by the term "bureaucracy".

IMO governments should be exactly large enough to do what the people that are governed by them want them to do. If liberty is what you are after, IMO the issue is not size, it's transparency and responsiveness. There are certainly governments that are (by libertarian standards) quite expansive that are not at all authoritarian or unresponsive. There are also governments that are quite small and limited that are quite fond of terrorizing their population.

I appreciate the point you're making here, but I think what we're talking about is the difference between living in a very rural vs a not very rural setting. If you live in an area with a high population density, it makes NO SENSE AT ALL for everyone to do everything for themselves, particularly in the area of providing basic services. It's far more efficient, effective, and fair for those things to be delegated to common, shared institutions such as government.

And if 80% of your revenue comes from income from resources held collectively by the people, and 1/3 of the residents work for government, I don't care who is clearing the tree out of the road, you're not living in a libertarian environment. You might well be living someplace where the bureaucratic aspects of government don't get in your way that much, but that's not the same thing.

And, as far as I know, in our system of government, sovereignty rests with the people. Honored in the breach, perhaps, but worth remembering.

Thanks -

[Gary Farber]

"My point is that, in spite of being subsidized by government, it’s a lot easier to imagine yourself as an individualist in Alaska than in other states, because you really do have to do a lot more for yourself."

"Imagine" would seem to be the key word there.

[Gary Farber]

"Yes. Like that weird idea that residents of a city the size of Alaska ought to have full voting representation in Congress, and control over their own budget."

A city the size of Alaska would be very impressive.

I expect you mean a city with a population that's the size of the population of Alaska.

If libertarians are good with collective national ownership of resources, there's seems to be a lot of room for libertarian communism.

[Radio Head]

Nice local perspective by mdl about how harmless the secessioninst AIP really is. Only...if Vogler's "willing to deal" it's a modern day miracle, since he's been dead for 15 years. Kinda calls mdl's expertise on Alaska politics into question, hmmmm?

Granting that Hickel used the party and then ditched it, it seems from their documents that AIP is kind of militia-ish. Its members are urged to infiltrate government in order to weaken it and gun ownership is their badge of resistance. Funny actually, considering Alaska is a socialist state, with Big Oil providing citizens annual royalty checks in return for state sponsorship of their cartel.

McSame's pander to the fundies is the gift that's just gonna keep on giving for the next two months. A close look at Palin is gonna expose how far off track the Christianists have dragged the GOP, shine a light on the corrupt corporate practices of the energy companies, and deflect attention from the fear-and-smear campaign about to be launched against Obama.

Thanks, John!

[Jesurgislac]

McSame's pander to the fundies is the gift that's just gonna keep on giving for the next two months

I'm betting on she was nominated to distract media attention from Obama at the end of the DNC, and also from the militarized takeover of St Pauls during the RNC.

She'll be gone September 12th.

Only...if Vogler's "willing to deal" it's a modern day miracle, since he's been dead for 15 years.

He can't be! He was on House MD only four years ago!

Oh, sorry, wrong TV series.

*makes popcorn*

[Carleton Wu]

bc,
?? I must have missed something. "Ever?"

Well, I didnt see an answer on that thread, and I was pretty darn curious. 'Timeline' made it sound like Monegan was dismissed before Palin was gov, or that Wooten quit months before etc. And I thought that all that stuff was pretty well ironed out. Thanks for explaining.

[mdl]

This discussion is winding down, but a few follow-up answers:

The issue is less who plows private walkways...

Actually I was talking about shoveling public roads, but yes, you’re right, this is really about rural vs urban and densely populated vs sparsely populated. Not unique to Alaska per se, except that Alaska is sparser than almost anywhere else in the United States.

To the guy who highlighted that Alaskans only “imagine” themselves libertarian, yes, I chose that word intentionally.

Re Vogler: others have brought him up, including Hilzoy, so I responded in kind. Sorry if I confused you by using the present tense. Anyway, I’m not professing “expertise” on Alaska politics. I’m just one guy who lived there (many many years ago) offering my own personal perspective. Others may see it differently.

[russell]

Actually I was talking about shoveling public roads

Right you are. My bad.

The kind of scenario you describe really is pretty common in northern New England, or in rural New England generally. If you don't live in town, you work things out for yourself.

I'd also like to emphasize that I have NO animus toward Alaska or Alaskans. It's a beautiful, beautiful place, and one of the few places left in our country where anything like real wildness still exists.

I just think it's sufficiently unlike the rest of the country, on a sufficiently large number of counts, that a brief tenure as governor there is not a very strong resume for potential POTUS.

Just my two cents.

Thanks -

[GailVortex]

one of the few places left in our country where anything like real wildness still exists

Which is why drilling in ANWAR is so mavericky!