This column is intended to inform, not inflame, and to connect national instability to practical decision-making in Alaska’s 2026 gubernatorial election. My spirit is civic, sober and grounded in our state’s governing realities.
Alaskans are practical people. We live far from Washington, D.C., yet we feel the consequences of national decisions more quickly and intensely than most states. Energy policy, federal land control, law enforcement, elections and courts are not abstractions here – they shape whether our community’s function or fracture.
As the country enters one of the most polarized periods in modern history, it is reasonable to ask a difficult question: Is the United States at war with itself?
The honest answer is, “No” – not in the sense of tanks, militias or rival governments. But the country is experiencing an internal conflict marked by deep mistrust, ideological extremism and competing views of whether the Constitution is something to be followed or something in need of “correction.”
That matters for Alaska, and it should matter when we vote later this year. Many Americans now believe institutions apply the law unevenly, elections are administered in ways that favor one side, speech is punished, disorder is excused and Constitutional limits are obstacles rather than guardrails.
At the same time, radical ideological factions, particularly on the far left, have been tolerated, enabled or defended by elements within one major political party. What matters is that millions of citizens believe the system no longer treats them equally.
History is clear: countries do not unravel because everyone is wrong. They unravel because trust collapses.
ALASKA IS NOT IMMUNE
Some argue Alaska can ignore national turmoil. That’s a mistake.
Alaska depends on Constitutional clarity between state and federal authority, neutral enforcement of law and order, public trust in elections and courts and leaders willing to confront – not accommodate – ideological extremism. I expect that we will experience some outside activism this spring in Alaska.
When other states normalize sanctuary policies, selective prosecution or ideological governance, the effects spread. They weaken federalism, undermine public confidence and invite disorder.
Alaska cannot afford that – not with our geography, our infrastructure challenges, our energy economy or our reliance on public safety and resource development.
GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION TRANSCENDS PERSONALITY
My belief is that this election should not be about charisma, slogans or social media
performance, but about governance under pressure.
Alaskans should ask every gubernatorial candidate:
— Do you believe the Constitution limits government power, or merely guides it?
— Will you enforce the law evenly, even when it is unpopular?
— Do you view radical political movements as legitimate partners or as destabilizing forces?
— Will you defend Alaska’s sovereignty against federal overreach?
— Can you lead decisively when institutions are under stress?
This is not about left versus right. It is about constitutional stability versus ideological drift.
ALASKA’S HISTORICAL ADVANTAGE & RESPONSIBILITY
Alaska is still young by state standards. We were built by people who understood self-reliance, fairness and rule-based cooperation. Our success has never come from ideological experiments. It has come from competence, restraint and respect for law.
In times of national uncertainty, states either anchor stability, or import chaos. To my observable knowledge, there are outside forces influencing our state – not just in the current blitz of political ads but with an influx of voters escaping sanctuary states that they destroyed. As they flee their sanctuary states, they inherently export their politics.
Then there are the vulnerable low information and low-income voters who need to understand the truth of what is occurring and the best candidates to address it. Are you going to be part of the problem, or part of the solution?
Whoever Alaskans elect as governor and lieutenant governor will play a decisive role in which path we take.
A FINAL THOUGHT
Civil conflict does not begin with violence. It begins when people stop believing the system protects them. Alaskans still have a choice.
In 2026, we must vote less on rhetoric, and more on character, constitutional loyalty and governing ability. We don’t need candidates with showmanship, incompetence through inexperience, or ones who display personality niceties. We require leadership that understands the stakes and is willing to act accordingly – even aggressively – if necessary.
Our future depends on it.
The views expressed here are those of the author.
