Has anyone ever considered that some of the tensions occasionally arising between Washington and Idaho could be the result of simple sibling rivalry?
Sure. I mean, it seems rather obvious when you think about it.
Washington has been a state longer. Washington knows the ropes, as they say.
Idaho, well, when you feel overshadowed by an older sibling, you will do almost anything to get attention. But enough about politics.
Washington, the 42nd state (admitted to the union on Nov. 11, 1889) understandably feels like the big brother in this relationship. Idaho, the 43rd state (July 3, 1890), defines itself in part by a yearning to live up to its big brother's reputation and achievements. Am I wrong?
But here's the thing. It's really a big brother's responsibility to look out for a younger family member. And I fear Washington hasn't really been doing right by the younger state to the east. So that's why I'm hoping Washington will step up and start pointing out where the little shaver has gone astray. A couple of areas come to mind.
Oh sure, Idaho might balk at first. You know how stubborn little brothers can be. But in the end, I'm sure the supportive feel of Washington's gentle, guiding hand will be welcomed.