Sarah Palin accused of drug use and cheating

A new biography makes a series of lurid claims about the politician -- but will they stick?

A controversial biography of Sarah Palin claims that she snorted cocaine off a 55-gallon oil drum, and cheated on her husband with his business partner and a basketball player.

The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin by Joe McGinnis is scheduled for publication in the US next week.

It alleges that the former Republican vice-presidential candidate was seen snorting cocaine off the top of a 55-gallon drum while snowmobiling with friends, and that she smoked marijuana with a professor while studying at Mat-Su College in Alaska.

The book also resurrects allegations that she had a six-month long affair with her husband's business partner, Brad Hanson, in 1996. Both Palin and Hanson have strenuously denied this in the past.

McGinnis angered Palin by moving in next door to her in Wasilla, Alaska, while he was researching the book. Palin's camp has not yet given an official statement, but her husband Todd Palin said:

This is a man who has been relentlessly stalking my family to the point of moving in right next door to us to harass us and spy on us to satisfy his creepy obsession with my wife. His book is full of disgusting lies, innuendo, and smears. Even the New York Times called this book 'dated, petty,' and that it 'chases caustic, unsubstantiated gossip.

Even ahead of the book's release, the handling of the allegations has caused controversy in the US. McGinnis made a deal with Garry Trudeau, author of the popular Doonesbury cartoon, to include extracts in the comic strip.

Some papers have decided not to run a strip containing the allegation that Palin once spent the night with basketball star Glyn Rice, saying that it is currently unsubstantiated. Another strip which many declined to run claims "Palin isn't comfortable in the presence of dark skinned people".

McGinnis's claims are certainly headline-grabbing, but it is difficult to judge their veracity. A New York Times blog points out that "many episodes cited in the book relied on unnamed sources or second- or third-hand accounts". Some US commentators have suggested that Palin -- a skilled media operator -- will turn this around and garner sympathy from her supporters. With the questionable credibility of the claims -- and the nasty, personal tone that book reviewers have noted -- this could be an effective strategy. There is little doubt the book will be a best-seller, but it remains to be seen whether the allegations will stick.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Is it OK to punch a Nazi?

There are moral and practical reasons why using force to stop a far-right march is justified.

It says a great deal about Donald Trump that for the second time under his Presidency we are having to ask the question: is it OK to punch a Nazi?

More specifically, after the events in Charlottesville last weekend, we must ask: is it OK to turn up to a legal march, by permit-possessing white supremacists, and physically stop that march from taking place through the use of force if necessary?

The US president has been widely criticised for indicating that he thought the assortment of anti-semites, KKK members and self-professed Nazis were no worse than the anti-fascist counter demonstrators. So for him, the answer is presumably no, it’s not OK to punch a Nazi in this situation.

For others such as Melanie Phillips in the Times, or Telegraph writer Martin Daubney, the left have seemingly become the real fascists.

The argument goes that both sides are extremists and thus both must be condemned equally for violence (skipping over the fact that one of the counter-protesters was killed by a member of the far right, who drove his car into a crowd).

This argument – by focusing on the ideologies of the two groups – distracts from the more relevant issue of why both sides were in Charlottesville in the first place.

The Nazis and white supremacists were marching there because they hate minorities and want them to be oppressed, deported or worse. That is not just a democratic expression of opinion. Its intent is to suppress the ability of others to live their lives and express themselves, and to encourage violence and intimidation.

The counter-protesters were there to oppose and disrupt that march in defence of those minorities. Yes, some may have held extreme left-wing views, but they were in Charlottesville to stop the far-right trying to impose its ideology on others, not impose their own.

So far, the two sides are not equally culpable.

Beyond the ethical debate, there is also the fundamental question of whether it is simply counterproductive to use physical force against a far-right march.

The protesters could, of course, have all just held their banners and chanted back. They could also have laid down in front of the march and dared the “Unite the Right” march to walk over or around them.

Instead the anti-fascists kicked, maced and punched back. That was what allowed Trump to even think of making his attempt to blame both sides at Charlottesville.

On a pragmatic level, there is plenty of evidence from history to suggest that non-violent protest has had a greater impact. From Gandhi in to the fall of the Berlin Wall, non-violence has often been the most effective tool of political movements fighting oppression, achieving political goals and forcing change.

But the success of those protests was largely built on their ability to embarrass the governments they were arrayed against. For democratic states in particular, non-violent protest can be effective because the government risks its legitimacy if it is seen violently attacking people peacefully expressing a democratic opinion.

Unfortunately, it’s a hell of a lot more difficult to embarrass a Nazi. They don't have legitimacy to lose. In fact they gain legitimacy by marching unopposed, as if their swastikas and burning crosses were just another example of political free expression.

By contrast, the far right do find being physically attacked embarrassing. Their movement is based on the glorification of victory, of white supremacy, of masculine and racial superiority, and scenes of white supremacists looking anything but superior undermines their claims.

And when it comes to Nazis marching on the streets, the lessons from history show that physically opposing them has worked. The most famous example is the Battle of Cable Street in London, in which a march by thousands of Hitler-era Nazis was stopped parading through East End by a coalition of its Jewish Community, dockworkers, other assorted locals, trade unionists and Communists.

There was also the Battle of Lewisham in the late 70s when anti-fascist protesters took on the National Front. Both these battles, and that’s what they were, helped neuter burgeoning movements of fascist, racist far right thugs who hated minorities.

None of this is to say that punching a Nazi is always either right, or indeed a good idea. The last time this debate came up was during Trump’s inauguration when "Alt Right" leader Richard Spencer was punched while giving a TV interview. Despite the many, many entertaining memes made from the footage, what casual viewers saw was a reasonable-looking man being hit unawares. He could claim to be a victim.

Charlottesville was different. When 1,000 Nazis come marching through a town trying to impose their vision of the world on it and everywhere else, they don't have any claim to be victims.