Politics is a fluid field. Political parties and ideologies are constantly shifting and adapting to new challenges, which means political coalitions are often temporary. Activists who come together to address a shared problem often find themselves at odds once that problem is overcome.
Political breakups can be just as vicious and destructive as divorce. Why do former allies often seem to hate each other more than long-term enemies? “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” they say, and the same goes for erstwhile political allies. A conservative Republican expects disagreement from a progressive Democrat, but feels betrayed when another conservative parts ways on what they believe are important issues. One can have a civil conversation with a progressive, accepting disagreement as a given, but the betrayal of a supposed ally cuts deeper.
In 2020, those of us opposed to government lockdowns and mandates coalesced into a strong political movement. This coalition energized Idaho conservatives, helping elect dozens of liberty-minded lawmakers in 2022 and 2024 and achieve legislative victories from medical freedom to tax cuts. By last year, however, the coalition was already fraying, and today it has fractured in multiple directions.
I’ve already written about the specific divides here in Idaho, and I don’t want to retread that ground. Instead, I want to look at why coalitions fracture and how we can continue to work together to achieve policy wins.
Imagine the conservative movement is an airplane. When we all agree on the destination, it’s a fun place to be—we’re enjoying food and drink, good conversation, and a nice view, excited for what will happen when we land. But what happens when we disagree? Suddenly we’re fighting over the controls—some want to go one way, some another, and still others want to, like Bane in The Dark Knight Rises, crash this plane with no survivors.
Last year, we learned that members of the same coalition that had fought lockdowns and elected conservatives in 2022 and 2024 had different ideas about policy and strategy. Now what? Do we fight for the controls until we crash into a mountain, or can we learn to work together despite our disagreements, expectations, and feelings of betrayal?
This political paradigm is as old as time. Fights over who counts as a “real conservative” are nothing new. From Taft versus Dewey, to William F. Buckley purging the John Birch Society, to today’s neocon vs. paleocon disputes, conservatives have always argued over who should be flying the airplane. Even the dynamics have remained mostly the same—in the 1940s, Taftites considered themselves the only true Republicans, while Dewey’s followers saw them as so uncompromising they would destroy any chance of electoral victory.
Today, the conservative label covers a wide range of views, and the fight for control of the movement has been raging for nearly a century. Paleoconservatives like Sam Francis and Patrick Buchanan were once ostracized but their ideas now drive the new right. Neoconservatives, who emerged after World War II supporting foreign interventions and free trade, have seen their influence wane under Trump, with some even aligning with the Democrats. Social conservatives prioritize defending traditional values but can fall into single-issue myopia. Libertarians are a separate breed entirely: focused on individual rights, often straddling left and right, and not always aligned with the conservative coalition.
Indeed, the political spectrum isn’t a simple left-to-right line. Some imagine it as a horseshoe, but a more useful view is the political compass, with two axes measuring authoritarian versus libertarian principles, and left versus right. Even this isn’t a perfect map, but two dimensions are better than just one.
Libertarians cover a wide range of views—some prioritize legalizing drugs, others cutting taxes or eliminating zoning laws, and some are pro-life while others are pro-abortion. Over the last decade, conservative-leaning libertarians have sought to steer the Republican airplane in their direction, energized by Ron Paul’s campaigns and reflected in recent additions to the Idaho GOP Platform. Idaho’s conservative movement now includes social conservatives, paleocons, Tea Partiers, libertarians, and a few neocon holdouts, all vying to claim the true mantle of conservatism.
The tension between traditional conservatives and libertarians often comes down to first principles versus real-world application. Libertarian ideas about individual rights and minimal government are appealing in theory, but implementing them in a society with scarce resources, criminals, and those unable to care for themselves requires more than ivory tower proclamations. Libertarians sometimes operate in a vacuum, focusing on principle without reckoning with practical realities, while conservatives have to figure out how to balance those principles with governance, societal needs, and the unintended consequences of policy.
Remember when Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) rated House Bill 109 negatively this year? H109 made Idaho the first state in the nation to prohibit using SNAP funds for soda and candy, a policy since adopted at the federal level by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. IFF’s rationale was that, even though SNAP itself should not exist, the government should not dictate what people can and cannot buy with those benefits.
Yet even the national Libertarian Party more or less endorsed RFK Jr.’s move to disallow junk food from public benefits. They pointed out—rightly, in my opinion—that once you accept government welfare, you can’t complain about rules attached to it. This illustrates the difference between the first principle (government regulation is bad) and reality (people are using tax dollars to buy soda and junk food, creating health problems that taxpayers then must pay for).
Obviously, I still believe the ultimate goal should be to eliminate welfare altogether. In the meantime, I’m glad my tax dollars are no longer subsidizing junk food.
While I’m glad there are libertarians laying out the principles of freedom, I believe we have a problem when they think they can police the conservative movement in the same way that Buckley did in the 1950s and 60s. The latest example comes, yet again, from Young Americans for Liberty (YAL).
Formed by college students who had campaigned for Ron Paul in 2008, YAL sought to inject a more libertarian flavor into the GOP. Much of that spirit of liberty has been positive, but it can be destructive as well. Consider Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie opposing President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” because it increased funding for ICE. That was missing the forest for the trees—and YAL is perhaps the worst offender.
YAL’s American Action Fund has spent the last year hammering Idaho conservatives, denouncing anyone not under its control as RINOs and sellouts, which pretty rich for an explicitly libertarian organization. Earlier this month, YAL’s Idaho field manager Sulamita Rotante sent an email full of vile personal attacks against Rep. Heather Scott, accusing her of supporting Speaker Mike Moyle last year in hopes of receiving a pay raise.
Scott was once a member of YAL’s Hazlitt Coalition, a group of state lawmakers under YAL’s banner, but left along with 15 others in response to what they considered heavy-handed tactics by the Texas-based organization. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, but I’d argue libertarian groups give that proverbial woman a run for her money. It’s one thing to never have been on the team, but to join and then leave? That was unforgivable.
YAL recently introduced its own legislative scorecard, joining an already crowded field. I have to say, it’s the most dishonest and rigged scorecard I’ve ever seen. The top eight spots are held by current Hazlitt members, and the ninth by the lone lawmaker who didn’t resign in 2024.
What a coincidence.
IFF is regularly accused of rigging its Freedom Index, but those accusations fall flat once you see that the Index rates hundreds of bills throughout the session based on fourteen objective metrics. There’s still human subjectivity, and IFF’s policy staff lean a bit toward the libertarian side, but I don’t believe the Index itself is rigged.
YAL’s scorecard, by contrast, cherry-picked a handful of bills designed to make their favored lawmakers look good, ignoring traditionally conservative legislation. As Sen. Brian Lenney put it on Twitter:
Because here’s what these fraudsters WON’T tell you:
YAL (the group behind this scorecard) deliberately IGNORED over 30 no-brainer conservative bills.
For example, they memory-holed MY anti-SLAPP bill protecting free speech, SNAP reforms, tax cuts, the landmark Medical Freedom Act, indecent exposure laws, and my bill to limit the power of Idaho’s public health districts (among others).
Why the cooked books?
Because including all these votes would have shown that the conservatives they love to attack as “traitors” are actually MORE conservative than they want you to believe.
This isn’t a scorecard.
It’s a hit piece designed to make solid conservatives look weak.
They cherry-picked votes to create an artificial gap between “real” conservatives and the ones they’re trying to primary.
By excluding bills where we ALL voted conservative, they manufactured a fake narrative about who the “true believers” really are.
Here are just a few of the bills that YAL neglected to include in its lawmaker ratings:
- H40: $252 million in income tax relief
- H59: Medical ethics defense
- H83: Enforcing immigration law
- H109: No soda or candy on SNAP
- H177: Gold and silver legal tender
- H310: Ballot security
- H352: No sexual orientation or gender identity instruction
- S1001: Anti-SLAPP
- S1027: No de-banking based on religious or political views
- S1031: Restricting the power of health districts
- S1198: No DEI in higher ed
- S1210: Medical Freedom Act
- S1211: Over-the-counter Ivermectin
I think Lenney is right: this was a clear case of cherry-picking legislation to not only elevate YAL’s favorite legislators and attack its 2026 targets, but also an attempt to push Idaho’s conservative movement in a much more libertarian direction. Remember, YAL openly supports legalizing marijuana, which could be on Idaho’s ballot in 2026. If enough legislators were dependent on YAL’s campaign funds, will drug legalization suddenly become a “conservative” issue?
Idaho’s conservative movement already struggles to stay united without groups from Texas and Washington, DC fanning the flames. Right now, we have several fractious coalitions fighting over the controls of Idaho GOP Airlines, and if we can’t figure out how to work together, we’re going to crash. Moderate Republicans pulling the party leftward is a huge problem, but we must also contend with libertarians trying to remake the GOP in their own image.
The question remains: how do we get along with those we feel have betrayed the movement and us personally? Like divorcing spouses whose love has turned to hate, we feel frustrated when former allies don’t see things the way we do. We lash out, accusing them of selling out, betraying their principles, or cowardice.
This is counterproductive.
The last time I wrote about this infighting, I was accused of hypocrisy for not calling out anyone on my side. That wasn’t the point of the article, but fine. Without naming names, I ask everyone in this conservative civil war to lay down their rhetorical weapons. Let’s call a ceasefire.
Let’s get past the anger of a tough breakup and see each other as fellow people again. Let’s move past the feelings of betrayal and unmet expectations, and learn to work together. Instead of fighting for control of the airplane, let’s focus on the 90% of issues we still share and leave the remaining 10% for private debate and, if necessary, respectful disagreement.
I still think about Ryan Spoon’s op-ed comparing politics to a team sport: figure out who’s on your team, then work with them to accomplish shared goals. Keep intra-team disputes private rather than trashing them on social media, which only makes the trasher look bad.
All sides will have to give a little, even those who think compromise is a dirty word. The Gang of Eight should disavow YAL and its tactics of deliberate division, while the Idaho Freedom Caucus should resolve its simmering dispute with the State Freedom Caucus Network. Let’s put the division behind us and look ahead to what kind of state we are going to leave to the next generation rather than destroying each other for petty reasons.
It’s one thing to call out politicians for holding positions contrary to Idaho’s traditionally conservative values, but quite another to constantly and dishonestly sow discord and strife. Look around and see which political figures and organizations are building unity, and which are driving division. Which voices are looking ahead to building a stronger coalition, and which are focused on tearing down former allies?
Unlike divorce, it’s okay that political coalitions naturally form and break up as time passes. While there’s no going back to the days when we were all enjoying the ride together, we can still work side by side rather than tearing each other apart. Let’s tune out the voices of division and strife and work to build a freer, more prosperous, and more conservative Idaho.
There’s a candid bonus note for paid subscribers over at Substack. Not subscribed? Click here to sign up!
About Brian Almon
Brian Almon is the Editor of the Gem State Chronicle. He also serves as Chairman of the District 14 Republican Party and is a trustee of the Eagle Public Library Board. He lives with his wife and five children in Eagle.
