Wyoming’s incoming leaders must learn the lessons of the past

There has been no shortage of retrospectives and analyses of this year’s Republican primary election. The Wyoming Freedom Caucus suffered major losses, with incumbents and challengers alike losing. Come next January, this faction that controlled the Wyoming House the last two years will be reduced to 10 or fewer members out of 62 total seats. There is no way to interpret those results other than as the voters’ rejection of the Freedom Caucus.  

What is less clear is the reason why Wyoming voters rejected these candidates. Was it their policies? Their apparent unwillingness to accept input? Their reliance on unelected consultants and national organizations to direct their votes? There is no way to really know if a single factor led to the rejection. Most likely, it was a combination of many factors that caused the voters to turn away.

What lessons can we learn from the Freedom Caucus’ time in office and its members ensuing decimation at the ballot box? One takeaway is that our policymakers must understand the real-world consequences of their actions.  Many of the issues championed by the Freedom Caucus were not the topics that genuinely impacted most people’s lives. Voters want a government that is responsive to their needs, not just responsive to storylines.  

In the same vein, even when the Freedom Caucus took on pressing issues, its members tended to move forward with proposed policies without considering outside input, even when presented to them. Their decisions appeared to be made elsewhere, which left no room for the real work of legislating. Citizens felt that their legitimate concerns went unheard, which painted the picture of a group detached from the actual needs of their constituents. It should be no surprise that voters reacted unfavorably.

In just a few months, a new crop of elected officials will be taking office. They will have much to learn. Nearly half of the Wyoming House will be freshman legislators, and most of the rest of the returning House members will be in only their second or third term. The Senate also will see many new faces. Of the 17 senators on the ballot, eight will be new beginning in January. A majority of our statewide officials will be new to the office beginning next year. Cities and counties also will see new officeholders elected. All will be learning on the job.  

In recognition of this learning process, we should be careful to temper our expectations. It takes a long time to turn a ship, especially with an inexperienced crew. Not everything that voters want is going to happen right away. What we should look for instead is, first, whether they are making progress, and second, whether our new leaders are considering input from others, learning the job and engaging in the process that will lead to better outcomes. We can forgive being new and clumsy, but it is much harder to forgive hubris in the face of this inexperience.

Our policymakers, both newly elected and veterans, must be careful to avoid the mistakes of those who are leaving office. Just as there are many reasons the Freedom Caucus lost this election, there are many reasons why the group won the last one. Our leaders should not be blind to the fact that part of the reason Freedom Caucus politicians won in the first place was that they spoke to a need in our society. Something was not right in the way things were being done, so the voters were willing to try something new. Granted, those voters quickly saw that the “something new” they voted for was not the answer, but we should not interpret the most recent results as a mandate to return to the way things were done before. Our leaders should learn and grow from the experience, not revert to the prior methods and status quo that led to their initial downfall.

Lastly, and above all else, those who now find themselves in positions of power or influence should resist the temptation to turn the tables on others who may have wronged them. Turnaround may be fair play, but it is bad governance. We expect our leaders to act in the best interests of the people, even if that means setting aside hurt feelings or even legitimate grievances. Good ideas advanced by your opponents are still good ideas, and the uncollaborative “us vs. them” division will only be further entrenched if the reaction to taking power is to punish those who came before you. Someone must break the cycle, and what better time than now? Our state has a great opportunity in front of it. Now is the time to rise to the occasion and show what the best version of Wyoming can be.