Kathy Hoiland's discordant conservatism
The Glendive Republican unpacks her criticisms of her own party as her primary election nears.
Welcome to Big Sky Chat House— a newsletter of candid conversations with movers and shakers in Montana.
If you found this email in your Promotions folder, please move it to your Primary inbox. That will make it easier to find down the road, and teach Gmail to send it to other subscribers’ Primary inboxes as well.
In her campaign for the state Legislature, Kathy Hoiland has struck a different tone than most other Republicans candidates.
Hoiland—who is running in the June 4 primary against Brandon Ler to represent the newly-formed HD 33—describes herself as a staunch Republican. Yet in her campaign to unseat Ler (who represented HD 35 until districts were re-drawn this cycle) Hoiland has focused much of her attention on her own party, and what she sees as the “tyranny” of its right flank.
Her criticisms have drawn fierce pushback. In late March, for instance, state Senator Steve Hinebauch published a letter describing Hoiland as a “so-called” Republican and insinuating that her stances—including her approach to abortion rights—were disingenuous. In response, Hoiland wrote a letter of her own in which she alleges that Hinebauch and some of his colleagues “neither care for religion nor politics and instead throw them in a blender” to nefarious ends.
Read on as Hoiland digs into her criticisms of the GOP, explains why she is nonetheless running as a Republican and offers her take on the censure of Democratic state Representative Zooey Zephyr.
Max: In your op-ed “I am a true Republican,” you describe factions of the Montana GOP as a “franken-theocracy.” Can you explain what you mean by that term?
Kathy Hoiland: Franken-theocracy for me, it means that they've taken some American values—not all of them—and some Christian values, and they've thrown them in a blender into something that doesn't look like either of those things.
I grew up in a very conservative Christian home with strong Republican family members. For me, those have always been separate in my mind. And so, to watch people mix them together into a stew, into a franken-theocracy—where there are people who are actively trying to impose their Christian values that don't match every Christian's values onto our state and to our nation—it's shortsighted.
That's what opens the door to losing your religious freedom altogether.
I’m a little confused about that last part. Is your argument that anyone who doesn't adhere to a particular definition of Christianity would lose their religious freedom?
Yes and no. If we start imposing religious precedents in our laws, what happens when somebody doesn't agree? We've opened the floodgates so that anybody can legislate their own morals instead of leaving people alone. This is Montana. We are a live and let live state. As long as I'm not hurting you and you're not hurting me, we stay out of each other's business. We help each other, but we don't tell people how to live. To see that threatened makes me nervous.
It's gotten weird. Never before in my life have I been called “not a real Republican” (laughs). I've been a Republican my whole life; my family's Republican. I grew up listening to talk radio with my dad. My grandma was an election judge. My brother is a Navy veteran. All of a sudden people are trying to tell me who I am. And I'm like, but you're wrong.
It's about privacy, right? I get to raise my children the way I want to raise my children. I get to choose what I'm doing with my body. All of these things within reason.
To play devil’s advocate, what one person considers “within reason” is not necessarily the same for everyone.
The measuring stick is the harm [something] could cause. If someone is not doing you harm, we don't need to change what they're doing. Raising children is a really good example: we know that it is harmful to starve a child. That's not a choice I get to make. You have to feed your children.
But does it do harm to my child to have them read the Bible every night or not have them read the Bible every night? No, that's a preference.
I was curious if there are a couple points where you’re generally aligned with the Montana GOP?
The Republican Party has always stood for lower taxes, smaller government and privacy. Those things I align with, but I don't align with centralizing all the tax money in Helena. I don't align with standing only on social issues. Those things I'm not here for.
The regular Republicans, I don't have a problem with [them].There's a lot of really good people who run or are sitting in the Legislature.
In light of these pretty bold differences you have with the current iteration of the GOP, I was curious if you considered running as an Independent instead of a Republican?
The current iteration of the Party does not mean that this is the way the Party is forever.
I've been a Republican my whole life. And Republicans aren't a monolith any more than Democrats are, or Independents. That's been the beauty of American politics—previous to the last 20 years, I think— people voted both parties. My dad has always said to me, you don't vote for the party, you vote for the person. And the letters behind people's names were an indicator, not an identity.
Currently, nine Republican candidates are running to represent Eastern Montana in Congress. Is there anyone in particular whose campaign resonates with you?
I appreciate Joel Krautter, because he does work well with others. And he is more of a big-picture thinker.
I do like Ric Holden as a person. He's a neat guy and I think he would do good things for agriculture; he's an expert in that for sure. But Joel has earned my vote.
During the last legislative session, Republicans in the state House voted unanimously to censure Representative Zooey Zephyr. If you had been in the Legislature at the time, would you have voted with them?
I don't think I would have. We all make mistakes. From what I understand, she did break the rules of the floor. However, that ultimately left her district with no representation over a few comments. I mean, we've started revolutions over that; ultimately that's taxation without representation. And it's not okay.
Have you heard from folks privately within the GOP who support your campaign?
I've been very fortunate that the people who know me and my community have been overall supportive. On the political side, less so (laughs).
It's been an interesting campaign. The Dawson County Republican Central Committee posted a picture on Facebook of my sign in the yard of somebody who has a Jon Tester sign as well, and wrote the caption, “Birds of a feather flock together.” That was a pretty strong indicator of how they feel about me. Politically, there's not a whole lot of people that are willing to put their necks out.
Kathy, before we wrap up, is there anything you want to highlight that we didn't chat about?
One of the hardest things I heard from a constituent was when I knocked on her door and I asked, “What matters to you?” And she said to me “My voice doesn't matter.”
It broke my heart, to be quite frank, because everyone's voice matters. You don't always get your way, but your voice matters. I want to show this district how much they matter, and I want them to get to have the benefits of this great state.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Good interview.