When I moved to Sandpoint almost 25 years ago, my aunt visited and asked my friend, “So, what do you do?” She meant her job, but that’s not what people here care about. In Sandpoint, the question is more like, “Do you hike, ski, have kids, horses, fish, hunt?” It’s about finding connection through how we live, not what we do for work—and that’s what made this place feel like home.
I’ve been a Republican since the 90s, and for a long time here, that was beside the point. We were a conservative community in the best sense: fiscally responsible, committed to strong families, and grounded in the idea that neighbors look out for each other. We invested carefully in good schools, decent roads, and public institutions because we understood they were tools that helped us build the kind of life we want.
Over the past decade, many people have moved to Idaho to escape what they see as failed liberal policies elsewhere. I understand that impulse. But in the rush to be the “opposite” of where they came from, some now look at long‑time Idaho Republicans as “RINOs” or even closet liberals, simply because we still believe in funding schools, protecting public land, supporting emergency services, keeping hospitals open, or maintaining basic services. Wanting functional public institutions is not liberalism; it’s basic conservative stewardship.
Since the Idaho Freedom Foundation’s “index” became a kind of shadow party platform, too many legislators seem more focused on protecting their score than protecting their constituents. If a Republican supports a school levy, a fire levy, or a practical compromise, they’re branded suspect. That’s how we end up with politicians who chase perfect scores and viral headlines instead of doing the unglamorous work of governing.
When voters get pulled into this purity test mindset and constant culture‑war outrage, we start voting against our own best interests. We’re told to obsess over “RINOs,” books, bathrooms, and slogans about “freedom,” while we ignore whether our kids’ classrooms are overcrowded, if there are adequate police and fire personnel, whether the local ER can stay open, or whether our roads and property values are being protected. None of those real life fights look flashy on a postcard.
We’re already seeing the cost. Idaho has the fewest doctors per capita, 47th for overall public school quality, and dead last for 3-5 year-old’ early learning skills. Young people leave because wages, housing, and services can’t keep up with growth. If we keep treating any Republican who believes in basic investment as a traitor, we will hollow out the communities we moved here to enjoy.
That is not the Idaho conservatism I found in 2002, and it’s not the Idaho that drew so many of us here. We can be conservative without being self‑destructive. We can demand accountability without sabotaging our schools and hospitals. I hope newer and older Idahoans alike will take a step back, look past the scorecards and labels, and start voting for the people who actually protect the communities we all chose to call home.
Barbara Schriber
Sandpoint
The correction I would make to your point, Barbara, is that blind conservatism is not a virtue. Saying you want good schools, hospitals and fire services without ensuring accountability of funding and corresponding evaluation of performance is not “Idaho conservatism of 2002.” To be a functional society we need agreement on what services we are willing to pay for and what we are not. We have to agree that if a service is found to be ineffective or poor performing, we don’t keep throwing money at it, just because that’s what we have always done. Shared community values and morals matter, these are not bumper stickers–they are the fabric of the community we live in. Morals and values should be the guide to our consensus, founded in rock and not the slippery mud of a steep slope. Conservatism is rooted in the ideal that we do for ourselves instead of asking the government to do for us. Conservatism is rooted in personal accountability. Conservatism is rooted in economic freedom and personal autonomy. Conservatism is rooted in the rule of law and constitutionalism that restrains government power. Conservatism is rooted in civic virtue and moral order. Conservatism is rooted in patriotism and national cohesion. Change should be managed cautiously and always with our morals and values in clear sight. Conservatism requires us to ask are the schools accomplishing their mission as charged? Are the laws being equally and fairly enforced? Are our institutions we have empowered being good stewards of the resources we provided them with? Are the government bureaucrats acknowledging that their revenue is not something to be taken from the people they serve without limit, but that they only perform the services the people are willing and able to pay for? Conservatism is the acknowledgement there are limits to the size of government and what it can or should be trying to accomplish. Conservatism is being more realist and less idealist. Ultimately this is about revenue and expenses; conservatism demands the scales to be balanced between the two. That is not sabotage or self-destructive; that is empowering autonomy and resiliency. When we allow expenses to unbalance the scales, we are stripping people of their autonomy, possessions and ultimately their freedom. That is not Idaho…that is not the United States as founded 250 years ago. I am not for Republicans, nor am I for Democrats; today there is actually very little light between the two parties when we look at overall performance. We need to unshackle ourselves from these two intentionally polarized mobs and take back the country that starts with “We the people….”