Butch Otter Rides Again

Idaho' next governor demonstrates the possibilities--and limits--of libertarian politics in the Republican Party.

David Weigel from the November 2006 issue

(Page 6 of 6)

“He’s a libertarian at times. He’s also not a libertarian at times,” says Richardson, his 2002 opponent. “He’s a convenient libertarian.”

What Kind of Governor?

Otter never runs away from his past. The DUI arrest has come up in this race; so have his votes against regulation of Idaho’s public lands and in favor of personal liberties. He doesn’t play up those beliefs, but he doesn’t back down from them either. “I still support medical marijuana,” he says, for example. “You go to some of these places where people have cancer. Some of these people, the only way they can get relief is by smoking marijuana. I was in favor of Oregon’s right to die law. I wouldn’t ever suggest that in Idaho, but that’s what that state wanted.”

What kind of governor will this make him, assuming the race continues to go his way? Has he softened at all since his brash, libertarian-colored gubernatorial campaign 28 years ago? Otter thinks for a few seconds. “I don’t know that I’ve changed,” he says. “I’m probably more understanding and less idealistic. I’m aware of the law of the land. I used to think, well, if we’ve got a state law here that would conflict with the federal law, well, by golly, we created the federal government, they didn’t create us. But if it’s the law of the land, it’s the law of land. And that’s what’s got to rule.”

And those are the limits of libertarian politics. Even in a state like Idaho, where the population is relatively open to libertarian ideas, radical small-government reforms are weighed down by political realities. That was the case even when Otter was on the rise. In a 1981 interview with Reason, Maurice Clements—Otter’s ally in the Idaho legislature—remembered that the Republican majority had bottled up his school voucher bill, refusing to let it come to the floor. “It so infuriated me,” he said. “A whole legislature that was dominated and controlled by Republicans, and you couldn’t even get a bill printed that would strike a blow for a somewhat half-way house approach to education!”

Libertarians in Idaho have allowed themselves some similar grumbling about Otter. “Otter is a consummate politician,” says Ted Dunlap, the head of the state Libertarian Party and a 2006 candidate for governor. “He’s playing down the issue of personal freedoms”—even though, in Dunlap’s view, Otter cares deeply about that issue. In October 2005, Ralph Smeed gave a dejected interview to Idaho Statesman columnist Dan Popkey about Otter’s backsliding on libertarian issues. “I’m not totally up in the air” about whether Otter would live up to his promise, Smeed said optimistically. “I’ve got one foot on the ground, with my fingers crossed.”

In his heart, Butch Otter is a libertarian, a man who thinks the government should stay out of people’s checkbooks, bedrooms, and library records. In his head, he knows how limited the appeal of libertarianism is to Idaho voters. What’s the difference between a libertarian governor and a governor who holds libertarian values? During the next four years, Idaho and the nation are going to find out.