I’ve spent several hours today reviewing comments on my new platform proposal left by fellow Republicans and conservatives over the past week, and I’ve made several changes that I will include as amendments when I present this proposal to the Platform Committee on Thursday afternoon. I’ve received overwhelmingly positive feedback on the idea of condensing the platform into something more concise than the current 20-page document, returning to an older Republican tradition.
One of the few negative responses came from current Idaho GOP First Vice Chair Mark Fuller, who is challenging Chairwoman Dorothy Moon for leadership at this week’s convention. He wrote a scathing email to delegates this morning accusing me of “assaulting” the Idaho GOP Platform and condemning Moon for not stopping me.
I found myself disappointed in Fuller’s actions today. Disagreement is fine—that’s what this debate is all about—but he never once called me to share his opinion or ask why I am proposing something so radical. Instead, he used me as a cudgel against his political opponent. He did not even bother to link to my proposal in his email, despite it being public and open for comments. Was he afraid that delegates might find themselves in agreement with me if they were allowed to read it for themselves?
On the other hand, I respect my readers and trust their judgment, so here is a link to Fuller’s email so you have the opportunity to decide for yourselves.
A few direct responses before I continue:
First, I did ask to be part of the Platform Committee because this is the area of the party about which I am most passionate. In 2024, I served as secretary of that committee, and this year I am proud to be a member. In his email, Mark Fuller says that Platform was always his favorite committee, which shows we have at least that much in common.
Second, I currently contract with the Idaho GOP for communications services. That means I handle social media, emails, and a great deal of behind-the-scenes work on the website. Fuller’s contention that this somehow disqualifies me from submitting a platform proposal as a duly elected delegate to the convention cannot be squared with the grassroots nature of the Idaho GOP. Counties and districts send delegates to the convention to participate, propose ideas, and deliberate—not to take orders from party officials. I have the same right as any other delegate to submit proposals. This proposal was not authored by the chairwoman, nor did I run it by her before submitting it to the state party office. The oddest part of Fuller’s email is that it spends more time discussing Dorothy Moon and my contract work for the state party as it does discussing the actual merits of the proposal.
So let’s talk about my proposal and how it fits into the history of party platforms. I recognize that this is a radical change, and I’m fully prepared for the Platform Committee or the full convention to reject it and continue doing things the way they have been done for the past few decades. If so, that’s fine—I believe I’ve started a valuable conversation about the meaning and purpose of a platform, and that’s sufficient for me. Ultimately—and this is what Fuller seems to have missed in his diatribe this morning—it’s not up to me; it’s up to the delegates to the convention. I don’t expect everyone to agree with my proposal. In fact, I’ve already revised it based on thoughtful criticism from Republicans across the state, and I expect to continue refining it during the committee process.
After all, this is not “my platform”; it belongs to the people of the Idaho Republican Party. Dorothy Moon often says that the Idaho GOP is a grassroots organization, built from the bottom up, not the top down. The platform should reflect that structure rather than being imposed by a few people at the top. Mark Fuller seems to have forgotten that today—just look at the title of his email: “KEEP YOUR MITTS OFF OUR PLATFORM.”
“Our platform.” Who is “our”? Is it all Republicans? Just conservative Republicans? Just state party officers? Does any Republican delegate have the right to suggest alterations to the platform, or do they first need to check with Mark Fuller?
The platform does not belong to me, nor does it belong to Mark Fuller. It does not belong to the state chair, the party officers, or even the Platform Committee. It is a document adopted by the delegates to the state convention every two years, and they are under no obligation to preserve the decisions made at past conventions. Each delegate has the same right as any other to propose changes and argue their case before the convention.
One of the more revealing passages in Fuller’s email is his concern that a shorter platform would mean legislators “cannot be criticized for failing to comply with our Republican Platform principles.” In other words, he sees the platform not merely as a statement of principles, but as a detailed standard by which Republican officeholders should be judged. We’ve seen this approach in action before, but the results were not positive. In 2023, Fuller’s own Bonneville County GOP censured Rep. Stephanie Mickelsen and issued warnings to Sen. Kevin Cook and Rep. Wendy Horman for allegedly straying from the platform. The committee censured Mickelsen again in 2024, along with Cook. Voters, however, responded by ousting conservative precinct committeemen and returning Mickelsen, Cook, and Horman to office by overwhelming margins.
Ironically, a concise platform is not a weaker standard but a stronger one. It asks Republicans to unite around a handful of core convictions rather than pretend unanimity on hundreds of detailed policy preferences accumulated over half a century. Go back and look at my annotated edition of the current Idaho GOP Platform to see where our nominated candidates agree, and where they disagree.
As my readers surely know, party platforms used to be concise and succinct. The first Republican platform in 1856 specifically called for ending slavery and polygamy in the territories, reinforced the supremacy of the Constitution and the principles of the Declaration of Independence, called for the admission of Kansas as a free state, and supported federal aid for railroads to reach the Pacific coast.
For the next century, party platforms did not try to be all things to all people. Rather, they laid out a specific legislative program for the coming two years. My friend Bjorn Handeen, who will chair the Platform Committee this year, has long been interested in the history of Republican politics in Idaho. He has done extensive research on the history of party platforms and posted this on Facebook today:
Someone asked me when the Idaho GOP switched from passing an actionable platform every two years to simply adding to it and making it larger and larger?
It took me a longtime to compile this answer, so I thought it was worth sharing:
The Idaho GOP appears to have made the transition gradually during the 1970s, with the change largely complete by the 1980s.
Prior to that, Idaho Republican platforms were typically short campaign documents adopted for a particular election cycle. The platforms of 1864, 1878, 1900, 1910, 1918, 1920, 1922, 1924, 1930, 1932, 1934, 1936, 1950, and even 1956 were generally concise statements focused on the issues of the day.
Newspapers often printed the entire platform or large portions of it because it was short enough to fit in a newspaper and was treated as newsworthy in its own right.
By 1972, the platform had become more comprehensive, but it still largely reads as a platform written for that election cycle. By 1974, entire sections and language from 1972 were being carried forward.
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, the platform increasingly functioned as a standing document that was amended rather than rewritten.
An interesting clue is that newspaper coverage changed at the same time. Earlier newspapers routinely published the full text of Idaho Republican platforms, sometimes over multiple pages.
As the platform devolved into a longer standing document, newspapers increasingly stopped printing it. By the 1980s they typically reported only the controversial changes or newly adopted planks, often noting that most of the existing platform remained unchanged. By the 1990s, coverage generally consisted of a handful of excerpts or a summary of selected positions rather than publication of the platform itself.
By 1988, newspaper coverage was reporting delegates debating changes to existing planks and noted that “most of the same planks as in 1986” were retained. At that point the platform was clearly operating as a living document. By 2000, the accumulated-document model was fully established, with large sections carried forward verbatim from prior platforms.
In short, there does not appear to have been a single convention where Idaho Republicans decided to stop writing new platforms. The evidence instead suggests a gradual transition between roughly 1972 and 1980 from a campaign platform adopted for a particular election cycle to a permanent platform that was periodically amended and expanded.
My proposal is intended not to be a radical revolution, but a restoration of an older American tradition in which the platform is not a massive document stuffed with hundreds of different policy positions, but a concise statement of principles and a limited number of specific, actionable tasks for our elected officials. If we’re going to hold our elected officials to the words of this document, while also using it to help voters understand what this party stands for, it needs to be short enough and straightforward enough to read and understand. I also believe the platform should be aspirational, but not unrealistic. As much as I believe the 17th Amendment was a mistake, I’ve concluded it serves no useful purpose in our state party platform. All it does is create arguments and division, so what’s the point?
I’ve taken the comments and suggestions offered over the past week and incorporated as many of them as I could into the wording of my proposal. I can’t change what has already been submitted to the committee, but I will come to the committee meeting on Thursday afternoon with several proposed amendments. These include minor tweaks to the language of the preamble, fixes for questionable items left over from the original platform (thank you to Rep. Barbara Ehardt for shining a light on certain contradictions regarding local control and individual liberty), as well as additional legislative priorities such as equal protection for the unborn, a stronger stance on Medicaid, and energy independence. Shout out as well to my old boss Wayne Hoffman, who took the time to submit several very thoughtful suggestions.
In the end, whatever platform adopted at this week’s convention will not be “Brian Almon’s Platform” or “Mark Fuller’s Platform,” but a statement from Idaho’s grassroots Republicans. Whether they embrace my proposal or reject it, I hope this conversation encourages everyone to think carefully about what a party platform is for and how we can best use it to communicate our principles, guide our elected officials, and build a stronger Idaho Republican Party that can fight for our liberty and our traditional values for many years to come.
I look forward to continuing this discussion in person beginning this Thursday in Meridian.
Feature image created with Microsoft Copilot.
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.
