By Zack Gottshall
Leadership is not measured by how well conflict is avoided, but by whether responsibility is embraced when it is most uncomfortable. In 2025, the Alaska Republican Party has failed that test— not because its grassroots have been silent, but because its leadership has been unwilling to act.
Across Alaska, multiple House District Committees have exercised their authority under Party rules to demand accountability from elected Republicans whose actions have diverged from the Party’s platform and stated principles. These actions were not impulsive or emotional. They were formal, deliberate actions taken through established district processes.
In 2025, House District Committees have taken formal action involving specific elected officials, including U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, State Senator Cathy Giessel, State Senator Kelly Merrick, and State Representative Chuck Kopp, just to name a few.
Yet time and again, Alaska Republican Party leadership has failed to act decisively or meaningfully on these calls.
This failure is not benign. It is consequential.
House District Committees are not advisory bodies. They form the foundation and majority of the State Central Committee, which serves as the governing body of the Party between state conventions. When district committees act, they are expressing the will of the grassroots — the very authority from which Party leadership derives its legitimacy. Ignoring that will is not leadership. It is abdication.
More troubling still, repeated inaction by those entrusted with Party leadership now threatens to undermine the Party’s ability to enforce accountability in the future. When leadership publicly discourages sanctions, minimizes censure efforts, or argues that certain elected officials may be “needed” for future legislative purposes, it signals that enforcement of Party standards is optional. Acting politicians can reasonably argue that the Party, through its leadership, chose not to enforce its own rules. That argument grows stronger each time district actions are sidelined or ignored.
The cost of this failure is no longer theoretical.
This is not an abstract risk. It has real and lasting consequences. Sen. Rob Yundt may ultimately avoid discipline not because the concerns lack merit, but because historical precedent now favors inaction. When Party leadership repeatedly declines to enforce its own rules, it creates a record future respondents can point to and say, “This is how the Party operates.” The signal sent to voters is devastatingly clear: the Alaska Republican Party does not care who uses the “R” after their name once elected. Each time leadership backs down, more voters disengage, more trust is lost, and more Republicans walk away— not because they reject the platform, but because they no longer believe the Party will defend it.
Selective or inconsistent enforcement erodes credibility. It weakens the Party’s moral authority and invites claims of favoritism, political convenience, or retaliation. A Party that will not enforce its own standards cannot credibly demand adherence to them.
Leadership that refuses to act boldly in defense of Party principles does not preserve unity; it hollows it out. Courage is not cruelty. Accountability is not division. A Party that chooses political convenience over integrity ceases to be a principled institution and becomes a personality-driven organization.
Equally troubling is the growing confusion about the role of Party leadership itself. Party leaders are stewards of the Party’s values and platform. They are not meant to use the Party as a political shield, a networking vehicle, or a platform for self-promotion. Stewardship requires humility, restraint, and a willingness to place the institution above individual ambition.
When leadership elevates optics, access, or future political calculations over enforcement of the Republican platform, it inverts its role. The Party exists to advance Republican principles, not to advance the standing of those temporarily entrusted with leadership titles.
Failure to act decisively and boldly reflects a lack of courage. And courage is not optional in leadership. It is essential.
If the Alaska Republican Party is to remain a serious, values-driven institution, it must recommit to enforcing its own rules without fear or favoritism. That means honoring the authority of House District Committees, respecting the governing structure of the State Central Committee, and acting decisively when accountability is required.
Cowardice dressed up as pragmatism is still cowardice. And leadership without courage is not leadership at all.
Zack Gottshall is a retired U.S. Army Intelligence Officer, former Vice Chairman of the Alaska Republican Party, a Commissioner on the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights, and a small business owner in Anchorage, Alaska.
