Bad faith arguments produce bad policy. We must reject them.

With the rise of populism in Wyoming’s politics, we are seeing a subsequent decline in good faith arguments about policy. Because populism breeds men and women who are often ill-equipped to make sincere arguments and don’t care to explore the actual points around any given issue, it stands to reason this will ultimately lead to the overall rise of bad policies. 

One of the hallmarks of good governance is policy that emerges after prolonged arguments made in good faith between lawmakers holding differing opinions and ideological viewpoints. We get our greatest strength as a self-governing nation and indeed as a self-governing state from the ability to argue about ideas with civility and in good faith. 

And as a conservative, I see good faith arguments as vital to good governance.

The more our elected representatives spend time debating with each other in good faith, the better the outcome. These arguments help inform the public about exactly what is at stake with each ideological viewpoint, from conservative to liberal. From there voters decide for themselves which view they will support in elections. 

Populism, as I have noted in a previous column, is not a set of ideas, but more of a political style centered around a few broad themes. It generally has an anti-elitist and anti-establishment bent that uses a strong-man leader or group of leaders who advocate for power to be concentrated in their hands. It also relies on an oversimplification of complex problems that can be boiled down to, in the words of populists, “the elites versus the people.” This is why arguing complex policy points from one specific ideological leaning, like conservatism, isn’t really populism’s jam. 

Before I go further, let me point out that populism’s main “strong man” tenet makes arguing policy somewhat irrelevant. You simply need to agree with and defend the fitness of the “strong man or strong group” as well as agree with whatever policies they promote and stay with them no matter how many changes to an ideological point they make. Then you will have fulfilled your role as a populist advocate. There is no need for a deep understanding of why you believe what you believe. 

For the populist, refining points isn’t necessary, but here in Wyoming at least, most populist arguments seem to settle around two main types: the straw man and ad hominem attacks. We’re seeing both deployed around a policy issue on the ballot next week. 

Constitution Amendment A was placed on the November ballot by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature back in 2023. The amendment, a fairly simple affair, creates a fourth tax class in the Wyoming Constitution allowing commercial property tax to hold a separate category from residential property tax.

Now, I’ve heard some solid good faith arguments against this constitutional change, all of them centering around Wyoming’s overall tax structure. But none of these discussions are coming from the people, mainly Freedom Caucus members and their supporters, who seem determined to kill Amendment A in November. Their arguments have no real tax policy points in them.

The good faith argument holds that Wyoming’s tax structure is already misaligned and leans heavily on the commercial side, while homeowners pay a tiny percentage of the overall taxes collected. This change, therefore, could signal to new businesses wishing to move to Wyoming that we are not working on fixing that inequity. That argument focuses on facts and reason. (I voted for Amendment A, because there’s a very good counter to this argument, but that’s not the important point here.)

The bad faith arguments regarding Amendment A are centered around the Wyoming populists’ two main forms of argumentation. 

Let’s start with the straw man argument, a technique that uses misrepresentation or oversimplification of an argument to create a “straw man” that is then masterfully knocked down. For Amendment A, that argument goes like this, “someone, someday could raise taxes, or somehow this doesn’t solve property tax problems (some even go so far as to say because property tax reform isn’t in the title it’s a fake) and therefore this is bad.” Classic straw man — what are the odds that the Wyoming Legislature will be raising taxes anytime soon? — but effective because it appeals to emotion and not reason. 

Then we have their ad hominem attacks, a particular favorite that’s used in Wyoming all the time, which is to criticize someone’s character or personal traits instead of discussing the policy itself. For Amendment A, these arguments contend the tax policy must be bad because the people who are supporting it are bad or have some murky, nefarious intent. A classic ad hominem attack, and one of the lowest forms of political attacks one can make. If you see it, dismiss it immediately. 

Neither of these arguments have anything to do with tax policy. Both are weak and nonsensical. But they do play to emotion, which is the populists’ playbook — someone’s going to raise your taxes, be afraid! or this person is bad, you should vote against the policy because they support it and they are bad! It’s akin to high school lunchroom stuff, but it appeals to some people. 

When you see arguments like these, know they are made in bad faith by people who most likely do not understand the issue and so they appeal to voters using the lowest common denominator. 

People who want to truly understand the issue should dismiss these kinds of bad faith arguments and instead find the folks who are making good faith arguments — in either direction — and educate themselves on the issues. 

Why? Because Wyoming will be stronger when we all do our homework with people who make us smarter, not dumber or meaner. And as a conservative, good faith arguments are vital to pursuing conservative policies. 

Former President Ronald Reagan described his modern conservative philosophy as being a “three-legged stool.” Those legs consisted of free market capitalism, social conservatism and a strong national defense. His eight years in the White House helped conservatives up and down the ticket win and hold elected office, sparking a whole generation of “Reagan” Republicans. The modern conservative movement has been shaped, as have I, because of him. 

But Reagan Republicanism is suffering nationally under the rise of populism. It’s happening here in Wyoming, as we see more and more people, including seated legislators, fall back on bad faith arguments for policies, many that are not even conservative, but that serve only as a means towards more populism (and thus more power.) 

The resulting policies will not be good for Wyoming. 

None of us will benefit from this current fad of populism. We must all endeavor to hone our arguments and reject the emotionalism and bad faith discussions we see all around us.

Iron sharpens iron. And in doing so, we will truly be making Wyoming a great place to live and work, filled with people who care about the details and want a bright future.