Libertarian.NE.PalinDuh

I really find this summary from Today's Papers (Slate) hard to believe. Shows how out of touch I am with the real world.

[The USA Today] lead story is about how Sarah Palin's resignation actually "boosted her a bit among Republicans." A poll taken this week shows that Palin has become even more polarizing after her resignation as the vast majority of Republicans want her to become a national figure, and Democrats overwhelmingly want her to just go away. Fifty-five percent of independents agree with Democrats. Almost three-fourths of Republicans say they'd be likely to vote for Palin for president in 2012, while 51 percent of independents say they wouldn't. [emphasis added]

This is the social conservative wing of the Republican party, the wing that wants more gubmnt intervention in our lives. It is not the small-gubmnt libertarian wing which played such an important role in helping the US economy grow in the 1980s.

My prediction (possibly wishful thinking?) is that by 2011, Sarah Palin will have faded from the scene and will have zero real influence in the Republican party.

Comments

[Brent Buckner]

Do you have a convenient overall assessment of her public record to point that provides strong evidence that relative to other Republican politicians she is more supportive of gubmnt intervention? If so, please do provide the link(s). Thanks!

[EclectEcon]

I don't. But the point I was trying to make is that the Republican party (along with Sarah Palin) seems to have drifted away from its small gubmnt ideals.

[Brent Buckner]

I agree that the politicians in the Republican party have drifted away from its small gubmnt ideals (which weren't always part of the party ideals).

I don't really know whether or not Sarah Palin's public record is more or less interventionist than the average Republican politician, so I'm hesitant to characterize support for her as more or less interventionist. Perhaps your wish would mean the fading from the scene of a relatively *less* interventionist Republican politician.

[Matthew]

Lets hope your prediction is correct. Though, I have to admit, watching Palin drive my sophisitcated urban liberal friends to apoplexy was priceless.

As for the size of government issue, I think the main reason the Republicans, and the Harper Conservatives for that matter, have stopped being for small government is because parties, when in power, have an interest in using the apparatus of the state to their advantage. I think they began to realize this in the post-war years when government got really big. Smaller government means fewer ribbons for politicians to cut. There is probably a decent political science thesis in there somewhere.