In the last several weeks, there have been a number of articles in this publication highlighting the fact that, though we elected a majority of Republicans in both bodies of the Alaska Legislature, we do not have Republican majorities in either the House or Senate. There have been various suggestions of what either the Republican Party, individual Republicans, or the Republicans in the Legislature should do. Those suggestions are made without fully understanding the political realities of Alaska.

Alaska has a weak party system compared to most states or to the country as a whole. While politicians have Rs and Ds (or Is) at the end of their names, one cannot assume a politician’s beliefs, just based on party affiliation. Regionalism, personality, and certain hot button issues of the day can often matter more than party in the Alaska Legislature.

A Democrat in Anchorage is not the same as a Democrat in Nome. A Republican in Wasilla is not the same as a Republican in Ketchikan. Coalitions with people crossing party lines to organize in the Legislature have been common since the 1960s. In the extreme example, the House had a coup in 1981 that shifted power from Democrats to Republicans with several Democrats joining Republicans (and two Libertarians) to elect a new House Speaker. The numbers of Democrats vs Republicans have changed in the intervening 40 years, but the dynamics are largely the same.

While we have battles over social policy, those battlelines are drawn on top of the fiscal lines, not the other way around.

Examining the outcomes in certain State House districts this past election helps illuminate the problems that we’re facing. One district voted for Trump, Peltola, and a moderate Republican for State House. In the 2022 election, that same district voted for (in descending order) a Democrat, a moderate Republican, and a conservative Republican for State Senate. Another district voted for Trump, Peltola, and moderate Republicans for both State Senate (in 2022) and House. Two more districts voted for Trump, Peltola, and Democrats for State House over conservative non-partisans. In one district, two Democratic candidates for House both outpaced the conservative independent.

The main battles in the Legislature today are on fiscal matters. How much do we fund education? How much do we spend on road maintenance or construction? How much do we spend on Medicaid? While we have battles over social policy, those battlelines are drawn on top of the fiscal lines, not the other way around. More socially conservative people are caucusing with socially liberal people because they largely agree on fiscal policy. Campaigns are funded and run based on fiscal policy as well.

While it was covered up for a while, Alaska has been in a fiscal model since the 1970s that encourages more spending. The old model was the state owns natural resources and takes in money from them (primarily oil), and then sends that money out into the economy through the operating and capital budgets. For many programs, like Medicaid and road construction, it’s matched with federal money, further increasing the power of the state. With state spending alone constituting about 20% of our economy, it has an outsized role compared to the private sector. With the decline of oil prices and production, the state has tried to continue that model using the Permanent Fund instead. Adding that into the mix, the state owns not only the natural resources of the state (excluding what the feds own) but also the largest single financial resource in Alaska.

The suggestions given in this publication over the last several weeks are largely toothless because they don’t take the full political picture into account.

Many people and businesses have decided to base their business model on that state spending. The capital budget funds construction companies. Medicaid funds doctors and hospitals. Education funds 53 school districts and the UA system. Non-profits will raise money privately, but will often get grants from the state that are five or ten times the size of their private fundraising. So, when we talk about state services, we’re not just talking about serving Alaskans; we’re also talking about people’s livelihoods, leading them to jealously guard that funding.

On the other side, except for those of us committed to small government principles, we don’t have a large group fighting for smaller government. There is no financial incentive to do so for most people.
While this was the model created in the 1970s when we were largely a Democrat state, it didn’t change much when Republicans took over in the 1990s. During most of that decade and into the early 2000s, state revenue was largely flat. Running on a platform of social conservatism and keeping the spending under control was easy when we didn’t have a lot of money flowing in. But that model broke down when money started rolling in during the oil price booms starting around 2006. Even though we had Republican governors and had elected a majority of Republicans to both legislative chambers (but with a coalition majority running the Senate from 2007 to 2012), our spending increased dramatically.

After accounting for inflation, our per person spending more than doubled from 2005 to 2015 (the last budget passed under Parnell). Being Republican didn’t mean that we kept spending down. Being broke meant that we kept spending down. Once that was gone, spending shot up.

So, what do we do? First off, we have to recognize that conservatives are a minority in this state and have been for a while. Social conservatives might be a majority, but fiscal conservatives most definitely are not.

Now we’re on the other side of that. Certain groups want to maintain government spending after building political power to do that over decades. That power crosses party lines. The jungle primary and ranked choice voting just compounded the problem. By removing the ability to challenge someone in the primary, we’ve shifted the political power of the state further left, based on fiscal issues.

That brings us to the difficulties we’re now in. The suggestions given in this publication over the last several weeks are largely toothless because they don’t take the full political picture into account. They assume that because registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats in the state – by about two to one – that we are a conservative state. That is not the case, or at least not on the fiscal side. So, let’s run through a few of those suggestions to see what would happen if we followed them.

First, the suggestion was to follow the Georgia Republican Party and ban someone from running as a Republican. Alaska’s law does not allow us to do so (it was investigated under previous leadership after RCV was passed). It is unlikely that the law would be changed while the people benefiting from it are the ones in the majority. While a case could be made in the courts that the party should be able to choose its own membership based on First Amendment freedom of association, it would take a lawsuit to do so. After a decade of infighting, the party does not have the resources to fund that kind of lawsuit. It will take another person willing to step up.

Even if we can’t stop someone from running as a Republican on the ballot, we can at least withhold support for their elections, right? Yes, except that’s been tried already. In the 2022 cycle, multiple legislators and candidates were censured by either individual districts or the party as a whole. That means that the party would withhold support and actively recruit and support a candidate against that person. Nearly every candidate who had a censure motion against them won in that election. While the party may have made certain decisions, they were outmatched in money and organization by other groups wanting to support fiscally liberal candidates. The problem was compounded by mixed signals. Some districts would censure a candidate while other districts would endorse them.

Once we recognize the true spot that we are in, we can start to build from there. But the true building that needs to happen first is not in the Legislature.

Another suggestion was to follow the lead of the Reform UK Party under Nigel Farage. While I can feel the frustration that would lead people to leave a party, the simple truth is that the American system of presidential republics is not well suited to third parties. Parliamentary systems, like the UK, are much better suited for that because of the coalitions that form to govern. With a directly elected chief executive, third parties can be influential but not generally decisive. Since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, we’ve formed a new major party only twice (the Whigs and Republicans). In both cases, it was because a previous major party completely disintegrated (the Federalists and Whigs, respectively). While I won’t pretend that the Republican Party is perfect, it is nowhere near collapse.

The next suggestion was to ask our new party chair Carmela Warfield to make more bold statements in favor of certain people or policies. She has already begun to do that, and I applaud her for it. But I also recognize that bold statements have to come from a position of strength. Especially at the state level, we’re not yet as strong as we need to be. We have to be strategic in our messaging, both within the party and to the public at large.

On that note, I do also want to commend Carmela for her work since becoming our new party chair last April. Under her leadership, we’ve flipped our House seat back to a Republican even in an RCV environment. That is no small feat. She’s also been much more active in helping to hold Republicans together in both the House and Senate compared to past party chairs. While we’re not yet where we want to be, we’re in a good spot to build on moving forward.

Finally, the suggestion has been to have all House and Senate conservatives vote against a draw from the Constitutional Budget Reserve. We’re aware of that suggestion, but it is likely meaningless. We played that card in 2021, and it has not been used again specifically because it was played then. There is also so little left in the CBR that even both coalitions have stated that they don’t want to use it. There isn’t much strategy in playing a card that isn’t even in the deck.

So, what do we do? First off, we have to recognize that conservatives are a minority in this state and have been for a while. Social conservatives might be a majority, but fiscal conservatives most definitely are not.

Once we recognize the true spot that we are in, we can start to build from there. But the true building that needs to happen first is not in the Legislature. We need to reach out to our friends and neighbors with the message of small government. Let’s remind people what the end result of ever-growing government is and always will be. Remembering that a primary reason that we are in this place is because of policies that encouraged people to make a living off of government money, let’s support candidates and policies that are likely to lead to more growth in the private sector. People with jobs not connected to government are more likely to vote conservative. Let’s examine the government structure that encourages more spending and push for alternatives that give people a reason to want less spending.

Finally, let’s get involved in groups and organizations that will do more than just shout loudly, but put the work in to grow our cause. We need to build not just a party but groups of hard-working, like-minded people outside of the Legislature before we worry about who we elect. I’ve been in three elections so far, and I’ve been outspent in all of them. I won because I had a vision and outworked my opponents. That is what will carry us.

A previous author wrote that courage is contagious. That is true, but it is only half the story. Aristotle told us that courage lies on a continuum. It not only has cowardice as an opposite on the one side, but it also has foolhardiness on the other side. Simply taking on the fight without first assessing the battlefield is crossing the line into foolhardiness. So, let’s make discretion the better part of valor and pick our fights where we know we can win. Until then, let’s be honest with our situation and work to build our vision, our message, and our organization to carry us forward.

The views expressed here are those of the author.

Click here to support the Alaska Watchman.