Advancing In Another Direction
Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska will “advance in another direction.”
I have no doubt that Sarah Palin is a fine person, a wonderful spouse, mother, and friend. I don’t question her faith or her ideals or her integrity. I question her as a candidate for national election, particularly a candidacy to the office of President of the United States of America.
Palin said this about her resignation:
…So that Alaska will progress, I will not seek re-election as governor. And so as I thought about this announcement, that I wouldn’t run for re-election and what that means for Alaska, I thought about, well, how much fun some governors have as lame ducks. They maybe travel around their state, travel to other states, maybe take their overseas international trade missions. So many politicians do that. And then I thought, that’s what wrong. Many just accept that lame duck status and they hit the road, they draw a paycheck, they kind of milk it, and I’m not going to put Alaskans through that.
I don’t raise this because of her political party. It doesn’t matter whether she is a Republican, Democrat, or whatever. The thing is, that she seeks to appeal to some mythical “base“—in this case, conservative—and she says things that are calculated to appeal to that base without regard for historical or political truth. (If, that is, anything may be acclaimed as “political truth.”)
Remember her statement during the recent Presidential campaign that she could look out of her office in Juneau and see the “maritime border” with Russia? Recall, if you will, that what she referred to is also known as the Bering Strait. No one can see the Bering Strait from any window or roof top in Juneau, Alaska; the distance is far too great. And, the view is blocked by a few high mountain ranges, too.
So, has Ms. Palin learned to be more circumspect in her statements? Does she now base pronouncements of fact upon fact? Do we need to dig deeply to find out?
Sadly, “no,” “no,” and “no.” Let’s look at portions of her resignation speech.
US History
From the shores of Maine to Texas and California to the tip of Barrow, we live in peace because centuries ago so many fought for something far greater than themselves.
Well, two hundred and thirty-three years have passed since the Continental Congress, in session in Philadelphia, passed our Declaration of Independence. So, it is correct to say that people fought for that independence “centuries ago.” In the context of history, though, ours is yet a young nation. A very young nation. Perhaps this is a minor point, but the description borders on (gasp!) hyperbole.
The Founding of (US) Alaska
Actually, she confined her remarks to the history of the US acquisition of Alaska, to wit:
We were purchased as a territory because a member of President Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet, William Seward, he providentially saw in this great land vast riches and beauty and strategic placement on the globe and opportunity. He boldly looked north to the future. But he endured such ridicule and mocking for his vision for Alaska, remember the adversaries, they scoffed and they called this “Seward’s Folly.” Seward withstood such disdain as he chose the uncomfortable, unconventional but right path to secure Alaska, so that Alaska could help secure the United States.
Well, close—but not quite. William Seward was a staunch Republican who loyally supported Abraham Lincoln in his candidacy and Presidential administrations. Seward believed, among other things, that
- The economies of the South and the North were completely incompatible and that free labor must triumph over slave labor
- The United States should occupy the whole of North America
Seward thought that the purchase of Alaska from Imperial Russia would make it easier to subsequently purchase British Columbia from Great Britain (British Columbia was not then a part of the Canadian Confederation).
While it is true that several significant newspapers and their editors, among them Horace Greeley, opposed the purchase of Alaska, it is not true that Seward was ridiculed or mocked. In fact, the Alaska purchase enjoyed large public support and the Treaty of Cessation was easily and quickly ratified by the Senate in 1867.
Funds to accomplish the purchase were, however, held up until the House of Representatives passed the necessary appropriation in 1868.
Federalists, Federalism, and State’s Rights
Our law department protected states’ rights. Two huge Supreme Court reversals came down against that liberal 9th Circuit deciding in our state’s favor just over the last two weeks. We’re protectors of our constitution. And Federalists protect states’ rights, as mandated in the 10th Amendment.
I won’t comment about the two cases to which Governor Palin referred, or to her description of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals as “liberal.” I wonder how anyone with any reading and understanding of US political history can describe Federalists as advocates of state’s rights.
The leading Federalist and founder of the long-disbanded Federalist Party was Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was certainly not in favor of state’s rights. In fact, he and his party were strongly in favor of nationalism and the federal government; hence, the application of “Federalist” to their party and platform. Oh, and good Federalists did not support a bill of rights, or the Bill of Rights. Of such, Alexander Hamilton asserted:
“I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”
On opposition to a Bill of Rights, Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers #84
Directions of Movement
Governor Palin concluded her resignation speech with this quote:
Take the words of General MacArthur. He said: “We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction.”
That statement is attributed across the World-Wide Web to General Douglas MacArthur. However, it was actually uttered by Major General Oliver Prince Smith, commanding general of the First Marine Division, who—during the famous retreat from the Chosin Reservoir during the Korean conflict—said:
“Retreat, hell! We’re just advancing in a different direction.”
General Smith did not believe the reports issued by MacArthur from Tokyo that repudiated intelligence warning of the presence and increase of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army in Korea. Although ordered to advance with all possible speed deeper into northern Korea and closer to the Yalu River, General Smith slowed the advance of his division, keeping its units within supporting distance of each other and establishing resupply depots along their general route of march. Subsequently surrounded by the PLA at Chosin Reservoir, General Smith and his Division broke out of that noose and conducted its famed fighting retreat back to the coast. Although the Marines suffered heavy casualties, they are acclaimed for not leaving a Marine behind, wounded or dead, and for returning as a fighting formation.
It is important to know your history and research the statements you wish to quote, if you want to be accepted as a serious candidate for larger office. Or, at least, I hope so.