OPINION


Gail Symons recently responded to my column and cartoon asking, “Who is Gail Symons, really?” by writing a piece titled “Ideology Versus Governance.” 

Her response argues that government should focus on solving real problems rather than starting with ideological doctrine. Few people would disagree with that principle. In fact, most Wyomingites would nod along with the idea that good governance begins with listening to people who work in the systems affected by legislation. 

But that was not the central question raised in my original piece. The point of my column was not that ideology should replace governance. The point was that when a columnist repeatedly criticizes policies that reflect the written planks of the Wyoming Republican Party platform, particularly on issues like election integrity, military standards, and national sovereignty, it is reasonable for readers to ask what ideological lens is being applied. 

 

Let’s Try This Again… 

In her column, Symons re-frames the debate as a choice between rigid ideology and practical governance. That framing may be rhetorically convenient, but it sidesteps the substance of the original critique. 

One example illustrates the point. In the original column, I asked for clarification about wording in a Cowboy State Daily article describing Symons’ military background. The article stated, 

“Symons attended the Navy Supply Corps School, formerly located in Athens, Georgia, where she was among some of the first women to graduate from the Naval Academy." 

Navy Supply Corps School is not the United States Naval Academy. Yet the sentence structure strongly implies Naval Academy graduation. That phrasing has never been publicly clarified, nor has the article been corrected.” 
 
My column simply asked for clarification. Symons’ response column did not address that question. The question raised in my column was not whether ideology can sometimes distort policy debates. Anyone who has spent time around politics knows it can. 

The other question was whether Symons’ own commentary consistently reflects the conservative principles she says she stands for. That distinction is important. Wyoming Republicans have adopted a party platform with clearly stated principles. The planks of the platform emphasize election integrity, national sovereignty, strong national defense, and equal standards under the law. They are not abstract talking points; they are positions debated and adopted by delegates across the state. 

When a public commentator regularly argues against policies aligned with those principles while still presenting themselves as a conservative voice, it is fair for readers to examine that tension. Symons suggests that ideological politics demands everyone belong to one camp or another. But asking questions about consistency is not ideological policing, it is accountability. 

Opinion writers routinely scrutinize legislators, activists, and political movements. That scrutiny does not stop at the edge of the opinion page. The original column asked readers to consider whether the arguments Symons advances match the conservative label she claims. Her response focused instead on the dangers of ideology in governance.  

That is an interesting discussion, but the original question still stands. When voters and readers evaluate commentary about Wyoming politics, they deserve clarity about the principles behind the arguments they are being asked to accept.