The upcoming election for the Utah Republican Party Chair on May 17, 2025, presents a pivotal choice between two distinct visions for the party’s future: incumbent Rob Axson and challenger Phil Lyman.
Rob Axson: The Institutional Conservative
Background: Rob Axson has served as the Utah GOP Chair since 2023. He previously worked for Senator Mike Lee and has been involved in over 20 Republican campaigns across Utah. (1) (2)
Ideology and Approach:
- Big-Tent Conservatism: Axson advocates for a broad, inclusive Republican Party that appeals to a wide range of voters while maintaining conservative principles.
- Fundraising and Infrastructure: Under his leadership, the Utah GOP raised nearly $3 million, a record for a single cycle, and achieved significant electoral successes.
- Caucus System Support: Axson supports the caucus-convention system but emphasizes strategic collaboration with the legislature to address concerns about the signature-gathering process. (2)
Endorsements:
- Endorsed by President Donald Trump, who praised Axson’s dedication to the Republican Party and Utah.
- Supported by Senator Mike Lee and Governor Spencer Cox. (1)
Phil Lyman: The Grassroots Firebrand
Background: Phil Lyman is a former state legislator and San Juan County Commissioner. He gained national attention in 2014 for leading an illegal ATV protest ride in Recapture Canyon, for which he was later pardoned by President Trump. (3)
Ideology and Approach:
- Anti-Establishment Stance: Lyman positions himself as a staunch conservative challenging the party’s establishment and advocating for grassroots involvement.
- Opposition to Signature-Gathering: He aims to eliminate the signature-gathering route to the primary ballot, arguing it undermines the caucus system.
- Local Control Advocacy: Lyman emphasizes the importance of local governance and reducing federal overreach. (4) (5)
Comparative Overview
| Aspect | Rob Axson | Phil Lyman |
|---|---|---|
| Experience | Utah GOP Chair since 2023; former aide to Sen. Mike Lee | Former state legislator; San Juan County Commissioner |
| Ideology | Big-tent conservatism; institutional approach | Grassroots conservatism; anti-establishment |
| Key Issues | Strengthening party infrastructure; inclusive outreach | Eliminating signature-gathering; local control |
| Endorsements | Donald Trump, Mike Lee, Spencer Cox | Backed by grassroots leaders at the local level, rather than major national figures |
| Fundraising | Record-breaking $3 million raised | Focused on strengthening future fundraising opportunities |
| Party Unity | Emphasizes collaboration and inclusivity | Known for his principled and direct approach |
It would be accurate to describe Phil Lyman as a “radical” in the Mark Twain sense: someone who challenges the establishment, speaks uncomfortable truths, and refuses to conform to the political norms of his era. In Twain’s words:
“The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts.”
Lyman:
- Defends the original caucus system and challenges signature-gathering routes—radical today, but rooted in constitutional representation.
- Pushes back against state and federal overreach, especially in land use—controversial today, but potentially mainstream tomorrow.
- Is labeled “confrontational” or “extreme”, just as past reformers were—but this often signals principled nonconformity, not recklessness.
Phil Lyman, often described as “radical,” actually fits the true radical archetype as described in Mark Twain’s cultural cycle: the one who disrupts the status quo to reawaken forgotten truths. From a psychological and philosophical lens—such as that outlined in the article “Overcoming Fear and Ignorance: A Path to Growth and Wisdom”—Lyman represents the growth path: the one who challenges comfort, provokes discomfort, and pushes people to confront fear, ignorance, and conformity.
He is actively attempting to push the Overton Window—that is, the range of acceptable political thought—back toward the original intent of the U.S. Constitution. This shift is radical in today’s climate not because it is extreme, but because the political center has drifted far from its foundational roots. As noted in the article “Tyrants’ Weapons: The Overton Window,” power structures often narrow what is “acceptable” to maintain control. Lyman’s platform defies that narrowing, aiming instead to restore principled representation rooted in decentralized power, local control, and civic virtue.
However, this disruption inevitably causes cognitive dissonance—a psychological discomfort experienced when confronted with truths that conflict with long-held beliefs or cultural programming. His critics interpret this as “confrontation” or “extremism,” but in truth, Lyman is offering a path of renewal through discomfort—a moral pruning for future fruit.
In contrast, Rob Axson represents the comfort zone—the status quo manager. His approach aligns with what “Overcoming Fear and Ignorance” describes as the avoidance path: maintaining public harmony by avoiding ideological friction. He works within the boundaries of the existing Overton Window rather than challenging its drift. His leadership appeals to those who prefer stability over change, pleasantry over principled tension, and broad inclusivity over ideological clarity.
Axson’s strategy ensures short-term peace, but risks long-term stagnation. It reinforces emotional safety at the cost of intellectual and constitutional renewal.
The parable of the drowning man—sometimes called Two Boats and a Helicopter—offers a powerful warning against spiritual blindness disguised as faith. In it, a devout man prays for God’s intervention during a flood, yet rejects all tangible help sent his way. After he drowns, he learns that each “ordinary” rescue attempt was God’s answer. This story isn’t just about personal salvation—it’s a mirror to cultural and political blindness.
In many ways, Phil Lyman represents one of those “boats”—a man grounded in constitutional principle, moral clarity, and local accountability. In a time when our political system is drowning in conformity, corruption, and compromise, Lyman’s leadership may be the very help we’ve been praying for—a vessel sent to re-anchor us to the foundation of liberty and accountability. Yet, as in the parable, society is at risk of rejecting that help because it doesn’t look how we expect, or because it challenges our comfort.
If we’re serious about returning to our roots—about reclaiming the values that built this nation—then we must recognize that divine help often arrives in the form of unlikely messengers, principled “radicals,” and local leaders who stand alone in the storm. Ignoring them may not just be political misjudgment—it may be spiritual denial in action.
Conclusion
This is not a race between good and bad—it is a race between growth and safety, renewal and routine, conviction and consensus. Those who value the original Constitution, civic courage, and moral clarity may resonate with the so-called “radical.” Those who favor diplomacy, big-tent inclusion, and managed evolution may prefer the status quo.
The choice is a mirror—not just of policy, but of psychological readiness for truth.
(1) Trump backs incumbent Rob Axson to lead Utah Republican Party
(2) Rob Axson
(4) Axson vs. Lyman: Inside the battle for Utah Republican Party Chair
(5) Utah governor defends record in primary debate after harsh reception at GOP convention
