There is interest being generated in the news about the fact that Sarah Palin’s husband was a registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party for a few years before becoming a Republican. That being the case, I thought I’d shed a little light on this group.
Believe it or not, I’ve known about the Alaskan Independence Party for many years, as I myself used to believe that America was a nation in decline and that independence was a good option for a number of states. I no longer think that, but I once did and so took an active interest in the various parties around the country that share that idea. Such political parties exist in a number of states like Hawaii and Texas, not to mention territories like Puerto Rico. Some are kooky and nutty (like the ones who want to restore the Confederacy), but most of them are completely above-board, non-violent, and legitimate. Whether one agrees with their stances on various issues or not, they are, like the Green Party or the Libertarian party, legitimate.
In Alaska in particular, the Alaskan Independence Party is surprisingly mainstream. Their support or at least their non-hostility is regularly courted by Democratic and Republican politicians, because they often have enough pull with the electorate to swing an election one way or another, or even to occasionally win an election themselves (including one Governor, Walter Hickel).
You can read about this party, which some have bizarrely likened to racists, terrorists, and people who scream “God damn America!” right here.
{ 19 comments }
thanks for the comments. a nice relief from the venomous attacks over the last few days
There is interest being generated in the news about the fact that Sarah Palin’s husband was a registered member of the Alaskan Independence Party for a few years before becoming a Republican.
I believe Todd Palin has been registered as "undeclared" since 2002, not as a Republican. Sarah Palin has been a registered as a Republican since 1982, when she first registered to vote.
America has such an influence on the rest of the world, that those of us outside looking in think we know more about the United States then the United States knows about us. It is good to be brought up short. Shown the error of your ways. From the outside it had appeared to me that there were only two political parties in the States. Where as we canadians have a multitude. Even to the point of having two (2) communist parties. Yeah! (yeah as in "you have got to be kidding,” not yeah, as in hooray). As you can guess, when they do get coverage in the media it ussually is about how each is claiming to be the official communist party and the other is a bunch of flakes. To which we respond …Yeah ( duh! ).
Only once did a party up here make any s. It no longer exists except in the hearts of those who think parties should be fun. It was the Rhinoserous party. I think one of the criteria of being a candidate was the ability to juggle. Think about the amount of juggling a politian must do. Makes sense. Part of the job. You should be qualified. Poking fun at government policy was easy. After we went metric, this party figured we should change the side of the road we drive on too. Using previous logic of big government, this was to be phased in. First the semi-tractor trailors would drive on the left. Then the second year RVs’ and mini vans would change, ect. The side benifit was perfectly obvious. Traffic congestion would be way down. Hmmm, way ahead of its’ time , but think what this would do to cut down on greenhouse gasses.
Parties in politics undermine the democratic ideal. They would have made sense when created. I think with the information distrabution as it can be, now, make them unnessassary. Alas, they are entrenched in the burocracy,and will be the bane of true freedom. So try to have fun with em.
Good luck with making a choice in November. The world awaits your decision. No pressure.
I did not know any of that Dean, that is very interesting. Man, it is going to get so ugly because Sarah scared the liberals! I am so very excited and I am still praying for her and her family. I think she is tough enough, I really do.
Dean,
I definitely agree that the AIP is not made up of terrorists or racists or whatever, but is there really a difference between saying "God damn America" and "America sucks so bad I want to secede," besides a trivial difference in tone? I wholeheartedly support the AIP’s right to exist, right to lobby for whatever cause they feel is right or in their own best interest, and the right of anyone or their husbands’ right to belong to such a party. I just don’t see why others’ claim of equivalence between those two statements is so bizarre in your thinking.
Zach: I hope this doesn’t sound condescending, but if you had much of a religious background you’d probably intuitively know that the answer to your question is "yes, there’s a big difference." A preacher calling down God’s wrath upon America from the pulpit is of an entirely different character than a political sentiment that you wish to peacefully separate from or are indifferent to America.
I believe this is something that will be intuitively grasped by most people who grew up religious–and, America being one of the most religious nations on Earth, that makes a practical political difference as well.
Also, the AIP does not take a hard-line stance on secession; their main goal is to have a statewide referendum, which they claim Alaska should have gotten but did not back in the 1950s, asking the people of Alaska whether they want Alaska to be a state, a territory like Guam, a Commonwealth member like Puerto Rico, or a completely independent nation. They claim Alaska residents were railroaded into a simple yes/no choice when they had more options available (and if I recall right at least some say that non-Alaskans who lived on military bases within Alaska at the time probably shouldn’t have gotten to vote on that issue, but did).
There is, clearly, some anti-American sentiment among AIP supporters, but on the whole that’s not the party’s character. They’re as close to mainstream as a third party gets in the U.S. I’d say.
What Dean said. Just like the Declaration of Independence.
P Mike,
but something tells me the Declaration of Independence was not taken quite as well in England.
Dean,
I see what you mean, God damning something, if you happen to believe in a smiting God, could be potentially very nasty. But I think the context here is useful. Rev. Wright’s claim was basically that America has done things (or is still doing things) so bad that it literally is deserving of God’s damnation. The AIP claim is that the US is either bad enough or denied them such a fundamental right in the past, that Alaska should be allowed to secede from the union. (I don’t buy that the only desire is for a referendum — a change in status away from a state is a clear desire to be independent from the federal entity of the U.S., and if you didn’t support either that or secession, how likely is it you’re such a stickler for the rules that you want to turn the clock back 50 years to see that they were obeyed?)
I see the difference in tone. I see even the difference in severity. However, they both stem from the basic sentiment of "The US is bad and did bad things," do they not? Maybe you can argue that the comparison is unfair, but I certainly wouldn’t call it bizarre.
I dunno man; I think there’s a big difference between "this isn’t working out the way we wanted, I want a trial separation and maybe a divorce" and "I fucking hate you, get the hell out of my life."
If you examine the AIP’s platform and web site (I linked it already in the front page article), they make a strong case for remaining as a territory or a commonwealth member; they suggest they’d do better that way, and want to keep things like the American military bases right where they are. So that, to me, would indicate something far different from, say, the Filipinos, who basically said "pack up your shit and get the fuck out of here." (Which, I note, is exactly what we did.)
Dean,
like I said, the comparison is perhaps unfair. but in your example in both cases the marriage is over you see what I’m saying?
I guess I see it as more than a style issue, I think it’s a substantive difference. One is "you are despicable" and the other is, "enh, this relationship isn’t quite what I wanted." That doesn’t seem to be just style to me.
I thought that one of the issues about this was that if Obama or his wife had made publicly positive statements about such a organization it would have been a much bigger deal.
The AIP’s ultimate goal is a vote. Not secession, but a vote. If the populace votes to become a state, it doesn’t seem to me like they’d have a real problem with it.
I’m slightly embarrassed (and slightly proud) to admit that I was once a member of the Libertarian party.  I now think that was politically stupid, but that’s another topic….Â
There were some members who were deeply committed to secession. And they were welcomed.   I figured most of them were ignorant or misguided.  Some were obviously just stupid.Â
But we needed every vote we could get, so we all got along.Â
OK, so we didn’t really get along. That’s the irony of trying to form a party dedicated to individualism.  But that’s another topic too…
I don’t agree with the assessment:
However, they both stem from the basic sentiment of "The US is bad and did bad things," do they not?Â
The government is supposed to represent the interests of the people; the interests of the people can be ignored without the government being "bad" or doing "bad things."Â If the government quits representing the intests of the people, then the people are supposed to change governments. (“When in the course of human events…”)
If I want to start a movement to separate my state from the Union like any traitor should then I guess I’ll have to marry a Republican running for public office. Then I too can be applauded for wanting to leave my country like a backstabbing traitor. IF I wanted to do that, that’s what I would do.
Since I love my country and want to live here the rest of my life, I will point out that if Sarah Palin wasn’t running for VP right now the Republican Party would flush this backwoods turd down with the rest of his crappy friends.
Most people would agree that like the Greens, the Communist party and the libertarian party, their views are laughable and the notion of separating from the Union is traitorous.
I find it highly ironic that the Republican Party, the Party that fought to keep the union together in a bloody war, would even consider allowing someone affiliated with a separatist into their ranks.
Man people are willing to spin anything involving McCain’s campaign into a magical place where chocolate streams run under the magical toadstool forest of Candy Land! Unicorns eat cake and pie out of your hands as they fart rainbows!
However, regardless of whether or not the message is "We hate you and want you to go away", or "We have decided that this relationship is no longer profitable, after you have finished your cup of tea you may leave quietly through the door and please leave the tea cozy and saucer with the maid. Thank you and have a wonderful life!" it is still separation and these people should be treated as traitors. If he doesn’t like America he can go help the Soviets take Georgia.
Er, I don’t think wanting to separate from the union using non-violent democratic processes counts as treason.
I also have yet to see any evidence that she was "associated" with the AIP, except that her husband was a member briefly a decade and a half ago. Other than that I’m just not seeing it.
"A preacher calling down God’s wrath upon America from the pulpit is of an entirely different character than a political sentiment that you wish to peacefully separate from or are indifferent to America."
Ok, so then if Palin’s preacher promised God’s active, harmful wrath on America, that’d be as bad? Or would there be perfectly reasonable excuses that only apply to Republicans for that as well?
Even a non-violent succession is startlingly close to levying war. Besides if they actually succeeded in running the state and went forward with their promise to try and make Alaska an independent nation, will Congress approve of it? I am guessing not. So, are they just talking or how far are they willing to go to make this a reality? Any organization such as this will always end up resorting to violent means.
Comments on this entry are closed.