A Sure Path To Self-Destruction (II)
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
But for Larison to sugeest that for Palin to keep in the good graces of her base, she has to back the more conservative candidate in every single race, no matter what other circumstances are in play, is totally ludicrous. ~Philip Klein
Had I said that, Klein might have a point, but I clearly didn’t. I’m not talking about Palin siding with the conservative in “every single race, no matter what other circumstances are in play,” but I am definitely talking about this Arizona Senate primary and the Palinite loathing of McCain. Rank-and-file conservatives dislike McCain as much for how he disrespects them as for his actual policy record, and it is especially the Palin loyalists who believe that it was McCain’s people who sabotaged Palin and sought to blame her for the failings of the campaign. In the Palinite story of her “persecution,” McCain and his staffers are seen as treacherous and untrustworthy.
It is easy to underestimate the significance of McCain’s record on immigration when considering how much rank-and-file conservatives in Arizona loathe him. Remember that his advocacy for immigration legislation nearly destroyed his candidacy on a national level. It was only after he gave up on talking about immigration during the campaign that he was able to revive his political hopes. There is a large bloc of Republican primary voters in Arizona who regard immigration as one of the most important issues, and they rightly regard McCain as one of the leading Republicans on the wrong side of the issue. That is why endorsing McCain would be very different from endorsing, say, Mark Kirk in Illinois, who has already been actively seeking her endorsement. Kirk may be a moderate, but for most people his name doesn’t mean anything and he hasn’t gone out of his way to aggravate and insult conservatives. Palin could endorse moderate candidates in blue states such as Kirk to her heart’s content, and her supporters probably wouldn’t think twice about it, but to support McCain for re-election to what has been a safe Republican seat would be more of a pragmatic compromise than a lot of them would be willing to tolerate. That doesn’t mean that she has to back Hayworth.
Klein may be right that Palinites are such cultists devoted to the person of Sarah Palin rather than to any discernible set of beliefs, in which case the Palin phenomenon is even more devoid of substance than anyone thought. On the assumption that her supporters actually object to “moderate” Republicanism for some coherent and intelligible reason, Palin will do herself great harm if she backs McCain.
Filed under: politics
8 Responses to “A Sure Path To Self-Destruction (II)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The problem for the Republicnas is that all paths lead to destruction. The Republicans can decide to be the Democratic-lite, me too party and lose all of the social conservatives, fiscla conservatives, and still not get one more black, Hispanic, Jewish, government worker, trial lawyer vote than they get today. Or the Republicans can stay the social conservative party with a little lip service to fiscal restraint and let the demographic changes in the U. S. overwhelm them. Or the Republicans can become a sane version of the libertarian party and lose the social conservative without picking up one non-white voter.
As all paths lead to failure for the Republicans, the real question is what will the U.S. be like as a one party state where the Democratic Party is the only real election?
The contradiction you highlight is unmistakable, and would be no less palpable if Palin were to try to weasel out of endorsing anyone in the primary (if the challenger runs, don’t think he’s announced yet). If Palin declines to endorse the man who put her on the national stage, that’s unequivocally a rebuke even if she doesn’t endorse his opponent.
But–I think your correspondent is right: Palin’s cult following would see a tepid, pro-forma McCain endorsement, phrased in terms of loyalty rather than ideological affinity, as the cost of doing business. Palin’s fans would rightly see that her failure to endorse McCain would be the biggest media firestorm since she resigned the governorship. So that’s how this games out: she endorses McCain, in a manner somewhat like I’ve described, and her fans let it go.
On the assumption that her supporters actually object to “moderate” Republicanism for some coherent and intelligible reason, Palin will do herself great harm if she backs McCain.
Her supporters need not have any coherent or intelligible reason to include McCain on their list of Stuff White People Don’t Like. As with returning tax rates to their levels of the booming economy of the 1990s, he simply happens to be on that list, whether deserved or not.
During the campaign, Palin dutifully echoed McCain’s support for ‘path to citizenship’, though it seems the issue only came up in one interview. Since then she has been silent on it as far as I can tell.
I think Palin’s strategy for 2012 would be to maintain the fiction of a viable candidacy for as long as possible. That means focusing on early primaries and caucuses where she can count on evangelical support – Iowa, South Carolina, Florida. Arizona wouldn’t be a high priority under that theory.
In the Palinite story of her “persecution,” McCain and his staffers are seen as treacherous and untrustworthy.
From what I’ve read about Palin’s book and associated interviews, Palin herself sharply distinguishes between McCain and his staffers. In the Sean Hannity interview she said she didn’t complain to McCain about the staffers because he had more important things to deal with.
@David Tomlin -
Iowa isn’t actually that much more evangelical than Arizona (12% versus 9.5%, data from http://www.thearda.com/QuickLists/QuickList_64.asp).
However, my impression is that evangelical dominated organizations (e.g. NRL) are far more powerful on the ground in IA vs AZ. And of course ground game matters more in a caucus than in a primary (so goes the CW, anyway).
If we assume that sectarian affiliation will matter a great deal in the early GOP primaries and caucuses, Arizona should be good for Romney if he’s still running (he came in a strong second in 2008 at about 35%; though AZ is only about 5% Mormon, it’s still far more than any other early state except NV, which of course Romney won).
What makes anyone think that Palin wants any elective office? After giving up the Alaska governorship, she’d want to be president?
She’s in money making mode now. She realizes her 15 minutes of fame are now. Strike while the emotional irons are hot. And the social conservative base is her target audience. Palin does not need to, or even want to appeal to a wider audience.
Rush Limbaugh proves that someone can get plenty rich playing to a relatively small ditto-head audience. Palin has her niche and shes’ going to stick with it.
Nothing wrong with that I suppose. I mean it’s a free country.
Iowa isn’t actually that much more evangelical than Arizona (12% versus 9.5%, data from http://www.thearda.com/QuickLists/QuickList_64.asp).
I think the difference would look a little bigger if the numbers were expressed as percentages of GOP primary voters. But what I had in mind was to distinguish states like Iowa and South Carolina from states like New Hampshire, which are also early voters but low in evangelicals.
In my second comment I meant to say Bill O’Reilly instead of Sean Hannity. I got my blowhards mixed up.
What makes anyone think that Palin wants any elective office?
I don’t. I think she wants to run, lose, and write another book. That’s why I wrote ‘maintain the fiction of a viable candidacy’. I don’t think Palin is in any danger of winning the presidency, and probably not even the nomination, and I doubt she herself believes otherwise.