Why There Are Battle Lines In Montana

Please follow us on X and Telegram

The Democratic Party in Montana has moved substantially to the left on the role of government, regulation, taxation, and social programs. Socialism and Communism have become core values of the Democrat party. Those of us who see that direction with massive concern and shock, and who value our Montana traditional values have a legitimate question: At what point does “bipartisanship” stop being cooperation and start becoming capitulation?

That question became impossible to ignore during the 2025 legislative session. Montana Republicans held a 32–18 majority in the Senate and a 58–42 majority in the House, yet a group of nine Republican senators repeatedly joined all 18 Senate Democrats to form a voting coalition on major issues. The nine became widely known by critics as the “Nasty Nine.” This was a betrayal.

And that brings us to the great Montana political parlor game: How much of your political philosophy can you trade away before you finally have to admit you traded it away and totally lost your Republican identity? Did we create a Republican Party Platform for fun and games?

These RINO Republicans argue that working with Democrats is simply pragmatic. They call it bipartisanship. They call it governing. They call it compromise. In reality, it is negotiating with evil, and it is a moving of the line that should never be crossed.

History provides plenty of warning signs. The Soviet Union, Maoist China, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, North Korea and other communist regimes demonstrated what can happen when government power becomes virtually unlimited and individual liberty becomes subordinate to the state. Deaths attributable to communist regimes over the past century are over ONE HUNDRED MILLION! The lesson is always the same: when the state becomes supreme, freedom becomes expendable.

That is why freedom loving Montana Republicans object so strongly when Republican In Name Only legislators routinely join Democrats on fundamental questions of government policy and legislative control. From this perspective, it isn’t simply a disagreement over tactics. It is a question of whether elected Republicans were sent to Helena to advance Republican principles—or to become Democrats with better camouflage.

Compromise is not automatically virtuous. There is nothing courageous about surrendering a principle and then putting a fancy name tag on the surrender. Calling it “bipartisanship.” Calling it “pragmatism.” Calling it “getting things done.”

But if the price of getting something done is abandoning the principles voters elected you to defend, perhaps the more appropriate question is: What exactly did you get done—and what exactly did you give away?

Montana is at an ideological crossroads. My position is straightforward: Truth does not become less true because it is politically inconvenient, and liberty does not become less valuable because compromise would make the legislative process easier.

There are times when reasonable people can and should negotiate. But there are also lines that should not be crossed and it’s a HARD STOP. There is NOTHING in the communist/socialist Montana Democrat agenda that we want or need!

Because once you convince yourself that there are no lines worth defending, you eventually discover that the line you refused to defend was the last one you had.