EDITORIAL
Wyoming calls itself the Cowboy State. We put the bucking horse on our license plates, celebrate rodeo as part of our identity, and have even adopted the “Code of the West” as our official state motto.
But the results of Tuesday’s Republican primary reveal a growing contradiction. Wyoming voters rejected many candidates who advocated limited government and individual responsibility, instead choosing candidates whose policies would expand government’s role in healthcare, economic development, and nearly every other aspect of life.
The cowboy imagery remains, but the rugged individualism is becoming harder to find. Wyoming law lists ten principles in the Code of the West, including: “Do what has to be done,” “When you make a promise, keep it,” “Ride for the brand,” “Remember that some things are not for sale,” and “Know where to draw the line.” Those principles describe people who accept responsibility, honor their commitments, and understand that character cannot be purchased with government money.
Yet several winners in the 2026 Republican legislative primaries campaigned on an increasingly different vision: When there is a problem, Cheyenne should spend more money. When a private business wants to expand, taxpayers should help. When healthcare becomes unaffordable, government should further insert itself between patients and providers. That is not rugged individualism. It is managerial government wearing a cowboy hat.
Consider House District 29, where Myca Sturtevant won the Republican primary with more than 64% of the vote. Sturtevant’s campaign says she believes “the best government is the smallest one.” But her policy answers tell a different story.
Sturtevant supported additional government funding for cities and towns, higher Medicaid subsidies for rural healthcare, continued funding for the Wyoming Business Council, and the restoration of a taxpayer-funded summer meal program. She also opposed the proposed 50% primary-residence property-tax exemption, arguing that government services needed the revenue. Her answers to Common Sense Republicans for Wyoming consistently favored preserving or increasing government spending.
Most revealing was Sturtevant’s approach to the Republican Party itself. Her campaign declared, “People over platform,” adding that she would follow the Constitution when it conflicted with a party platform. Of course, the Constitution is superior to any political platform. No serious Republican disputes that. But the statement avoids the real question: Does a candidate seeking the Republican nomination agree with Republican principles?
Sturtevant ran under the Republican brand while reserving the right to reject the document that defines that brand. Her campaign also described her as an “independent Republican” accountable to her neighbors and “no one else.” Her campaign website makes that independence part of her identity. That may sound appealing, but it is difficult to reconcile with one of the Code of the West’s simplest instructions: “Ride for the brand.”
A ranch hand cannot collect wages from one outfit while openly refusing to represent it. Yet Wyoming politics increasingly treats party affiliation as nothing more than ballot access. Candidates want the Republican name, Republican voters, and Republican electoral advantage without accepting the principles that distinguish a Republican from a Democrat.
House District 46 produced a similar result. Cameron Wright defeated incumbent Ocean Andrew by an unofficial vote of 1,255 to 808. Wright supported more state assistance for rural healthcare, including higher Medicaid subsidies, continued funding for the Wyoming Business Council, restoration of the summer meal program, and additional funding for the Wyoming Department of Transportation. Wright’s questionnaire repeatedly identifies additional government spending as the answer.
Those positions do not make Wright uniquely radical. That is precisely the problem. Government expansion has become so routine in Wyoming politics that it is now described as moderation.
The same pattern appeared in Senate District 29, where Lisa Engebretsen defeated incumbent Bob Ide. Engebretsen supported increased direct distributions to cities and towns, more state support for rural healthcare, and continued funding for the Wyoming Business Council. She did call for greater oversight and accountability, but her fundamental position remained that government-directed investment is necessary for economic diversification. Her published answers embraced the Business Council’s role in attracting investment and supporting private economic activity.
Then there is Senate District 1, where Ogden Driskill narrowly defeated House Speaker Chip Neiman. Driskill was a vocal supporter and sponsor of legislation proposing $15 million in state funding to entice the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association to move its headquarters to Cheyenne. Senate File 124 was presented as an economic development opportunity.
Nothing better illustrates the Cowboy State contradiction than using taxpayer money to subsidize a cowboy organization. The Code of the West says some things are not for sale. The modern Wyoming establishment says nearly everything is negotiable if an economic-impact study promises enough jobs.
Supporters call this “business development.” But whether the money is delivered directly, routed through a local government, or spent on infrastructure designed for a favored company, the principle remains the same: Government collects money from taxpayers and directs it toward projects selected by political officials.
The Wyoming Business Council acknowledges that most of its state money cannot be granted directly to private businesses. Instead, programs finance publicly owned infrastructure intended to serve businesses and promote economic development. It also administers limited programs that provide grants to companies and entrepreneurs. The Business Ready Community program is the mechanism, but the political philosophy is still government-directed development.
That philosophy has repeatedly been articulated by Wyoming Business Council CEO Josh Dorrell. Dorrell has dismissed pure free-market arguments as belonging to ivory-tower institutions, maintaining that the real marketplace has been distorted by other states offering taxpayer-funded incentives.
His conclusion is that the free market is effectively working against Wyoming, and that Wyoming must use government money to compete with government spending elsewhere.
During a December 2025 legislative budget hearing, Dorrell made that position unmistakable. He told lawmakers that today’s market had been “monkeyed with,” and declared, “There will need to be government interventions if we wish Wyoming to compete in the U.S. economy.”
When Senate Appropriations Chairman Tim Salazar asked whether Dorrell’s proposed solution was simply more money, Dorrell answered, “Yes,” along with policy changes. Dorrell even acknowledged that the Business Council might ultimately require a budget exceeding $1 billion to accomplish its goals.
At least Dorrell is candid. The Wyoming Business Council’s philosophy is not free enterprise. It is the belief that because other governments manipulate the market, Wyoming must manipulate it too.
That is how government intervention perpetuates itself. One state subsidizes a company, so another state concludes it must offer an even larger subsidy. Politicians then call the resulting bidding war “competition,” even though taxpayers are supplying the money, and government officials are choosing which businesses receive an advantage.
By that logic, there can never be less government. Every subsidy somewhere becomes the justification for another subsidy here. A truly free market does not require politicians to determine which company deserves assistance, which community receives infrastructure or which industry should be recruited. Businesses succeed by serving customers, taking risks, and investing their own capital. That is the economic version of doing what has to be done and taking pride in your own work.
The healthcare issue presents the same contradiction. Not every candidate calling for higher Medicaid payments has endorsed a literal single-payer system. But they have embraced its underlying direction: When healthcare markets struggle, the government should assume more responsibility for financing and directing care.
Government-run healthcare rarely arrives in one dramatic vote. It develops incrementally—one subsidy, reimbursement increase, program and emergency appropriation at a time. Eventually, hospitals become dependent on government money, patients become dependent on government programs, and politicians gain more influence over medical care.
There is a legitimate rural healthcare crisis in Wyoming. Hospitals face labor shortages, long travel distances, and unfavorable payer arrangements. Those problems deserve serious solutions. But rugged individualism requires examining competition, price transparency, regulation, and private alternatives before treating another government appropriation as the only possible answer.
This is where the Wyoming Republican Party Platform is far closer to the Code of the West than many of the candidates who reject it. The platform declares that liberty cannot be separated from economic freedom, that the free market is most compatible with personal liberty, and that “government that governs least governs best.” It also states that no one possesses a fundamental right to the fruits of another person’s labor. The Wyoming Republican Party Platform emphasizes individual rights, limited government, personal responsibility and free enterprise.
Those are not foreign or extremist ideas; they're foundational ones. Limited government, private property, free enterprise, personal responsibility, and individual liberty are not recent inventions of some radical political faction, though they are treated as such by many of the candidates who won on Tuesday. They are principles upon which the Republican Party was built and upon which constitutional government depends. They also reflect the self-reliance, independence, and respect for property that allowed people to settle and survive in the West.
Nevertheless, those foundational principles have been portrayed as extreme by the very candidates seeking office under the Republican label. Supporting the party platform is described as ideological rigidity. Expecting Republicans to follow Republican principles is dismissed as a “purity test.” Reducing government is called reckless, while spending more taxpayer money is presented as practical and moderate.
Our political vocabulary has been turned upside down. Limited government is now called extreme, but a state economic-development agency suggesting it may need more than $1 billion is treated as reasonable. Allowing businesses to compete without political favoritism is called unrealistic, while using public money to pick winners and losers is called investment. Expecting people to take responsibility for themselves is portrayed as harsh, while creating permanent dependence on government is described as compassion.
The principles did not become extreme. Candidates running as Republicans simply moved away from them—and then attempted to redefine anyone who remained in place as a radical.
That may be the greatest contradiction of all. The Republican Platform is treated as an embarrassment by some of the same people who rely on the Republican name to get elected. They reject the brand’s foundational principles while using the brand’s overwhelming electoral advantage.
“Ride for the brand” means a Republican should represent Republican principles. “Remember that some things are not for sale” means government should not purchase economic growth with someone else’s money. “Know where to draw the line” means recognizing that government cannot become the employer, insurer, developer, and provider of first resort without destroying the independence that made the West possible.
Tuesday’s results were unquestionably the voters’ decision. But winning an election does not resolve the contradiction. Wyoming may still call itself the Cowboy State, but if its elected officials continue choosing dependency over independence, subsidies over free enterprise, and government management over personal responsibility, the title will become little more than the Republican branding they used to get elected.
A bucking horse on a license plate cannot make a government program rugged. And a cowboy hat on a Democrat doesn't make him a republican.