An Ode to the AIP

All great things must come to an end, and although this fact has been well ingrained in me, I am still never ready when I am hit with a harsh reminder of how fleeting it all is. Last month, the Alaskan Independence Party died, being dissolved by its own members. Our state of Alaska has been left without the party that defended its interests and people more than anyone else. In the spirit of remembrance, I thought it would be worth discussing the history of the party, as well as what its dissolution symbolizes for the state of Alaska.

People my age do not really care about the Alaska Independence Party, and this makes sense because its greatest figures died years ago. The most notable hero of the AIP, and frankly of Alaska, is Joe Vogler. I could write a whole article about Joe Vogler and his escapades, but I will keep this section brief.

Joseph Vogler founded the Alaskan Independence Party in 1978 under the belief that Alaskans had been robbed. Robbed of what, you may ask? The option to choose independence. The non-binding 1946 plebiscite on statehood, he argued, was not complete in the options it provided to Alaskans, making it illegitimate for justifying statehood. The charter of the Alaskan Independence Party demanded that Alaskans be offered, and should have been offered in 1958, a new vote with the following options:

1. Remain a territory.
2. Become a separate and independent country.
3. Accept commonwealth status.
4. Become a state.

Vogler led the AIP until his death in 1993 under mysterious circumstances. An Alaskan firebrand, he was not without his controversies. For one, he was a proud Alaskan separatist, a title that drew ire from many in the state who wrote this idea off as a bizarre fantasy. He was quoted saying, "I have no use for America or her damned institutions," and even requested to be buried in Canada until Alaska is freed from American tyranny.

Vogler was originally from Nebraska, moving to Alaska in 1942 where he worked for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Fairbanks. The quintessential Alaskan, he was also involved in real estate and mining. As a symbol of the north's frontier spirit, he seemed the perfect representative for a purely Alaskan separatist movement.

The party of Joe Vogler reached its zenith in 1990, when former governor Wally Hickel ran in the gubernatorial election under the flag of the Alaskan Independence Party after being shunned in the Republican primaries. Hickel narrowly won that election. The Alaskan Independence Party had captured the governorship. Although Wally Hickel was not as radical as Joe Vogler, the AIP had asserted relevance and at least had someone sympathetic to them in office. Hickel would eventually leave the AIP in 1994.

Since Hickel's governorship and Vogler's death, the AIP remained as a shell of its former self. It occasionally ran candidates for major races, most recently John Wayne Howe in the 2024 Alaska House race. Sarah Palin was also noted to be sympathetic to the Alaskan Independence Party, a source of controversy in her 2008 run as John McCain's running mate.

If I had to categorize the Alaskan Independence Party's ideology outside of its titular issue, I would call it conservative libertarian. Its 22-point platform remained available on the party website despite the dissolution. Notable issues included cutting red tape, complete repatriation of public lands held by the federal government, a constitutional amendment prohibiting property and income taxes, defense of Second Amendment rights, and privatization of government services.

You may be wondering why I think the dissolution of the Alaskan Independence Party is a tragedy. One reason is straightforward: it was a living piece of Alaskan history that is now lost to time. But there is a more troubling reason I lament the loss of Alaska's largest third party: it reflects a political climate changing for the worse.

I noted in my article Stay Cool, Alaska that Alaska has a unique political character defined by a lean toward sensible, moderate politics. Despite being a separatist party, the AIP ironically fit that character in an important way. It reflected a distinct Alaskan political identity, where people looked for solutions tailored to Alaska rather than getting swallowed by the national culture war. It also served as a temper on the two main parties, because AIP voters could swing elections.

Without the AIP, we will likely see a more partisan and divided Alaska. It is only a matter of time before everything becomes a culture war issue, and we have already seen signs of this in recent years: DOGE Alaska, discussions focused more on federal policy than Alaska policy, and rhetoric from politicians more concerned with owning ideological opponents than defending Alaska's direct interests.

The AIP was the only party that unequivocally centered Alaska first, placing state interests above national political theater. In the spirit of the AIP, I urge Alaskans to vote for those who will best defend the interests of Alaskans, not the interests of culture war veterans from the Lower 48.