This article was first published on Seward’s Folly, the author’s personal Substack, September 19, 2026.
Over the past year, I have given constructive criticism to many Republican candidates running at the district, state, and federal level. Some have ignored the advice; some have responded positively. One candidate called me last week to complain about the coverage their campaign received. Not everyone is happy to get criticism, but wise people use it as an opportunity to improve.
This refusal to accept suggestions isn’t limited to politicians. I saw this same behavior from some of the leadership in the early days of Prudhoe Bay. Oil production was prioritized above all else, and all of the work teams were working as fast as possible. As was probably inevitable with that mindset, safety suffered.
Management took two different approaches to this problem. The Type A managers would issue some harsh ultimatum, like “I’m going to fire the next guy that has an accident!” Of course, when that word got around, the number of reported safety incidents went to zero. That doesn’t mean the accidents stopped; the ultimatum just drove reporting underground. Nobody wanted to get fired, so they kept their mouths shut when accidents happened, and if they got hurt, they self-medicated or waited to see their personal doctors when they went home. This approach didn’t solve the problems; it just hid them from view, and nothing changed.
The Type B managers took a different approach. They encouraged honest reporting after an accident and would conduct a thorough investigation. Sometimes they found external factors were responsible, where equipment was not adequate for the task, or it had worn out and failed from overuse. These findings allowed changes to be made which fixed the root cause of the problems so that the same type of accident wouldn’t be repeated.
The Type B managers realized that a negative incident, just like constructive criticism, is an opportunity to learn and improve, but only if you don’t ignore it.
One example of where constructive criticism was successful in the current election cycle is with gubernatorial candidate Dave Bronson. During a meet-and-greet in Homer last December, his position on addressing the Supreme Court’s grand jury change made by SCO1993 was inadequate. This is an important issue for voters on the Kenai Peninsula, so I wrote an article noting his weakness in this area. Mr. Bronson wasn’t very happy to receive the criticism, but he refined his position and published an article about it in the Alaska Watchman. I respect him for that.
We can’t know whether Bronson’s position on grand jury rights factored into his primary success, but one thing is clear. House District 8 around Soldotna is the center of interest in Grand Jury rights on the Kenai. While Bronson received 8.13% of the votes statewide, in House District 8, Bronson received 12% of the votes. In this case, constructive criticism was not only effective at helping a candidate refine his message but also helped him to have success in the election. Other candidates should heed his example.
It is difficult to take feedback from others. Sometimes it can be viewed as a personal attack, but every candidate has areas where they could improve. Those who chafe when criticized should understand that not everybody who praises you is your friend, and not everybody who criticizes you is your enemy. A wise person understands the difference and tries to learn from the feedback.
