The Gem State Chronicle is pleased to publish letters to the editor submitted by readers. Submit your own letter to [email protected]. The editors reserve the right to publish or decline on a case by case basis, but generally anything that avoids vulgarity or obvious slander will be accepted. Keep it concise!
In a recent column, Brian Almon argued that Idaho politics requires a careful balancing act—building coalitions through flexibility and compromise while maintaining a “true north” of core principles. It is a compelling idea. It is also, increasingly, a flawed one.
If “true north” conservatism means anything, it should rest on a clear and consistent set of principles: limited government, restrained taxation, and the protection of fundamental civil liberties. These include freedom of religion, free speech, the right to bear arms, and protections against unreasonable searches and self-incrimination. On social issues, many conservatives would add a commitment to the right to life, traditional family structures, personal accountability, and self-reliance over government dependence.
These are not fringe ideas. They are foundational.
And yet, when looking at the Idaho Legislature through this lens, it is difficult to identify any meaningful coalition consistently advancing them. In practice, alignment around these principles is rare—so rare that it often feels less like coalition-building and more like standing alone.
Even legislators who identify as strongly conservative seldom pursue policies that materially reduce the size, scope, or cost of government. State spending continues to outpace population growth. Efforts to expand Second Amendment protections have largely stalled for over a decade. And the state’s response during the pandemic raised serious questions about how firmly constitutional liberties are actually upheld when they are tested.
What fills the vacuum is not principled governance, but performative compromise. Legislation is frequently diluted to the point of irrelevance, passed with fanfare, and presented as meaningful progress when it accomplishes little. These symbolic victories may serve short-term political messaging, but they do not reflect a serious commitment to underlying principles.
At the same time, attention is often diverted toward manufactured or exaggerated issues—policy distractions that generate headlines but have little bearing on the core functions or responsibilities of government. This further dilutes focus from substantive governance.
There are exceptions. Raúl Labrador has, at times, taken a more active role in identifying waste and inefficiency. But such efforts appear isolated rather than indicative of a broader institutional commitment. Too often, these issues are acknowledged but not meaningfully addressed by the legislature itself.
This reality calls into question the premise that coalition-building, as currently practiced, is anchored to any shared “true north.” If anything, alignment on principle appears incidental—driven more by political convenience than by conviction. When outcomes are examined empirically, there is little evidence that legislative direction is consistently tied to core conservative values.
In the rare cases where policy does appear aligned with those values, it often coincides with moments of political opportunity rather than sustained philosophical commitment. These instances are then highlighted in campaign narratives, not as part of a coherent governing approach, but as isolated proof points.
If “true north” is to mean anything, it must be more than rhetorical. It must be observable in outcomes, not just invoked in strategy discussions. Until then, the concept risks becoming less a guiding principle and more a convenient abstraction—one that obscures, rather than explains, the realities of governance in Idaho.
Todd Hoffman
Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
About Staff Writer
The Gem State Chronicle brings you news and analysis that empowers you to make positive change in Idaho. Established 2022.
