Introduction
Wyoming, often recognized as one of the most conservative states in the United States, is experiencing a political paradox. Despite its overwhelmingly conservative electorate, the state’s government and leadership frequently exhibit moderate or even liberal tendencies. This article explores this phenomenon through the lens of “Bureaucratic Capture,” a theory suggesting that as a significant portion of a population becomes employed by various levels of government—local, county, state, or federal—the bureaucracy gains disproportionate influence, ultimately driving government policy in a direction that may not align with the will of the majority. The case of Governor Mark Gordon, a Republican often criticized for being too liberal, is a concrete example of how this dynamic unfolds in Wyoming.
The Theory of Bureaucratic Capture
Bureaucratic Capture occurs when an increasing proportion of a state’s population works for the government at any level—local, county, state, or federal. These government employees, or bureaucrats, develop a vested interest in maintaining or expanding the government programs that benefit them directly. Over time, their collective influence can surpass that of the general populace, leading to a government that prioritizes the interests of its employees over those of the broader population it was elected to serve.
In Wyoming, where approximately 30% of the population is employed by some form of government, this theory explains the disconnect between the state’s conservative electorate and its more moderate or liberal government policies. As more citizens rely on government employment, the political environment becomes more favorable to policies that sustain or grow government institutions, even if these policies conflict with conservative principles of limited government and fiscal restraint.
(Source Bank of Start Valley)
Governor Gordon: A Case Study in Bureaucratic Capture
Governor Mark Gordon’s tenure vividly illustrates Bureaucratic Capture in action. Despite being a Republican, Gordon has faced significant criticism from more conservative factions within his party, particularly the Wyoming Freedom Caucus, for his moderate to liberal policies. Critics argue that his governance style reflects a departure from traditional conservative values, especially regarding environmental policy and government spending.
One of the most contentious aspects of Gordon’s administration has been his approach to environmental issues. Gordon has championed initiatives to make Wyoming a “carbon negative” state, advocating for carbon capture and investment in renewable energy projects. These initiatives, while aligning with broader national and global environmental goals, have been perceived by many in Wyoming as a threat to the state’s legacy industries like coal, oil, and gas. Such policies have led to accusations that Gordon is more aligned with liberal environmental agendas than with the conservative values of his electorate (Cowboy State Daily) (Cowboy State Daily).
Gordon’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic further fueled accusations of liberalism. His implementation of mask mandates, business closures, and promotion of vaccinations were viewed by many conservatives as government overreach, exacerbating concerns that his administration was not in line with the state’s conservative principles (Cowboy State Daily). This perception has been reinforced by his endorsements of candidates through his PAC and the “Trust But Verify” website, which has supported more moderate Republicans, further alienating him from the conservative base (Cowboy State Daily) (Cowboy State Daily).
The Critical 30% and Its Influence on Wyoming Elections
The fact that approximately 30% of Wyoming’s population works for the government is not just a significant statistic—it’s a critical factor in understanding the state’s political dynamics. This 30% represents a well-organized and motivated segment of the population that is likely overrepresented in primary elections. Given that Wyoming is a one-party state, with the Republican Party dominating the political landscape, primary elections are often where the real battles are fought. Approximately 70% or more of the Wyoming legislature is effectively determined during the primaries, as many districts have little to no opposition in the general election.
Voter turnout data from recent election cycles shows that primary elections have a significantly lower turnout compared to general elections. For instance, in the 2022 elections, the primary turnout was about 44%, compared to 66% in the general election. Similar patterns were observed in 2020 and 2018, with primary turnout ranging from 38% to 44% and general election turnout between 61% and 75%. This lower turnout in primaries means that a smaller, more engaged portion of the electorate—potentially including a significant number of government employees—can disproportionately impact the outcome of these elections.
Given that government employees have a vested interest in maintaining or expanding government programs, their influence in the primaries can skew the selection of candidates towards those who support such policies, even in a predominantly conservative state like Wyoming. This dynamic facilitates the Bureaucratic Capture of the state’s political system, where the interests of the government workforce increasingly shape the policy decisions of elected officials.
Patterns in Legislative Voting Behavior
Over the past four years, an examination of legislative voting patterns reveals a growing polarization within Wyoming’s state government, with clear divisions between fiscal conservatives and those more inclined to support government spending. The data from the Evidence-Based Wyoming legislator comparison shows a consistent split between “Savers” who vote to reduce spending and “Spenders” who support budget increases (Cowboy State Daily).
This divide is particularly evident in budgetary decisions, where conservative legislators consistently rank higher in opposing increased spending. In contrast, more moderate or liberal legislators, including those endorsed by Governor Gordon, tend to support measures that expand government programs. The increasing alignment of Gordon’s endorsements with the “Spenders” category further underscores the theory of Bureaucratic Capture, as it suggests that the governor’s political alliances are shaped by a preference for maintaining or growing government institutions, even in a state where the electorate favors fiscal conservatism (Cowboy State Daily) (Cowboy State Daily).
The Impact of Bureaucratic Capture on Wyoming Politics
The implications of Bureaucratic Capture in Wyoming are significant. As the influence of government employees grows, the state’s policies and governance may increasingly diverge from the conservative values held by most residents. This dynamic is exacerbated in a one-party state like Wyoming, where low voter turnout in primary elections allows well-organized groups, such as government employees, to exert disproportionate influence on the selection of candidates. As a result, even in a state where the electorate is overwhelmingly conservative, the government may pursue policies that reflect the interests of the bureaucracy rather than the broader population.
This dynamic has led to a growing divide within the Wyoming Republican Party, with conservative factions like the Wyoming Freedom Caucus pushing back against what they see as the liberal tendencies of Governor Gordon and his allies. The ongoing debate over Gordon’s policies and endorsements highlights the tensions within the party and the broader challenge of aligning government policy with the will of the electorate in a state where Bureaucratic Capture is increasingly evident.
Conclusion
The theory of Bureaucratic Capture offers a powerful lens through which to understand the political dynamics in Wyoming, particularly the disconnect between the state’s conservative electorate and its more moderate or liberal government policies. Governor Mark Gordon’s administration provides a case study of how this dynamic plays out, with his policies and endorsements reflecting a preference for maintaining and expanding government institutions, even at the expense of traditional conservative values. As Wyoming grapples with the implications of Bureaucratic Capture, the state’s political landscape will likely remain a battleground between conservative principles and the influence of an increasingly powerful bureaucracy.
