PART IV — The Unstoppable Mamdanization of Arizona
Post by Linda Brickman
The Questions Voters Must Ask Before They Cast Their Ballots
Arizona Is The Case Study — But The Questions Belong To Every State
Note To Readers:
This article is the final installment in a four-part series on what I have called “The Mamdanization of Arizona.”
This is not a 50-state survey. It is an Arizona case study with a voter roadmap that voters in every state can use to help STOP the FULL Mamdanization of their State!
Arizona is where the evidence is in front of us: the Governor’s insane veto record, the radical coalition pressure, the ballot-measure warfare, the ESA fight, the election-integrity fight, the lawsuits, and now the Governor’s race that will determine the course of Arizona’s governance.
But the Questions Below are BIGGER than Arizona. Every voter in every state should be asking the same basic question before casting a ballot:
Who Is Really Trying to Shape My Vote — And What Will This
Candidate Do When Power Is Placed in His or Her Hands?
That is why I asked Congressman Andy Biggs 12 direct questions for this article. His answers are not included as campaign decoration. They are included because Arizona voters deserve direct answers before they choose their next Governor — and because voters in every state can use these same questions with their own candidates.
For readability, Congressman Biggs’ answers are quoted where they best illustrate the questions voters should be asking. (the full Q&A can be made available as an addendum upon request).
The Mamdanization Series Comes Home
Part I created awareness.
Part II exposed the coalition.
Part III followed the machinery to the ballot.
Part IV now brings the question home: What should voters do with what they now know?
It is not enough to recognize the pattern, identify the coalition, or understand ballot warfare. At some point, voters must turn that knowledge into action. That means asking harder questions before they vote, looking past campaign slogans, and refusing to let others (consultants, unions, activist networks, donor groups, media narratives, and political machines) define the race before voters have asked the questions themselves.
And in Arizona, ALL those questions now lead directly to the Governor’s race.
Governor Katie Hobbs has already shown Arizona voters how she governs. Her record-setting 541 vetoes during her first term are not merely an irrational-based statistic: They are a governing record of chaos, or incompetence, or BOTH; they clearly show that what she blocked, what she protected, what she refused to negotiate, and what kind of power she chose to exercise, were never for the benefit of everyday Arizonans.
Congressman Andy Biggs is asking voters to choose a different direction.
Hobbs Represents the Record – Biggs Represents the Alternative.
Voters Represent the Ultimate Decision.
That is why this final article asks tough governing questions — not soft questions, not campaign questions, not personality questions. Because voters are not choosing a slogan. They are choosing who will hold power when the next fight comes.
The Candidate Offering a Different Direction
Congressman Biggs answered the below questions directly. No staff filter. No vague campaign memo. No avoiding the hard contrast.
His answers matter because they show how he intends to define Governor Hobbs’ record, how he would govern differently, and how he would speak to voters who may not agree with Republicans on every issue, but are deeply concerned about affordability, schools, border security, public safety, election integrity, and government accountability.
That matters.
The answer to Mamdanization is not merely complaining about socialism, government control, union pressure, ballot warfare, or political machinery. The answer is the leadership willing to confront it — a candidate willing to say what is broken, explain what he would do differently, and ask voters for the authority to change direction.
That is why Andy Biggs’ answers belong in this final article.
Not because this is an interview piece. Because this is the moment where the warning becomes a choice.
Now Part IV asks whether the person seeking to replace Governor Hobbs understands the fight We the People face — and whether he has a principled, governing answer.
The Questions We Asked
Before voters hand power to anyone, they should cross-examine the record and the alternative. These are the questions submitted directly to Congressman Andy Biggs:
- Governor Hobbs has built the largest veto record in Arizona history. If you are elected Governor, what would your governing style be when dealing with a Legislature that may not always agree with you?
- What are three bills or policy areas Governor Hobbs vetoed that you believe Arizona voters should understand before November?
- Do you see Governor Hobbs as a moderate Democrat, or as part of the national leftward shift inside the Democratic Party? Why?
- The ESA fight is now headed to the ballot. How would you explain the difference between “parent choice” and “government control” to an independent voter who does not follow education politics closely?
- If elected, what would you do to protect Arizona’s universal ESA program while also answering concerns about accountability and misuse?
- Governor Hobbs’ defenders say she uses the veto to stop extreme legislation. Her critics say she uses it as a governing strategy. How should voters judge the difference?
- How would you contrast your approach to border security, lawful presence, and public safety with Governor Hobbs’ record?
- What would your first 100 days as Governor look like? Name the top three priorities.
- What would you say to independent voters who may not agree with Republicans on every issue but are concerned about affordability, schools, border security, and government accountability?
- This article series discusses “Mamdanization” as socialist-style politics, ballot warfare, and government-control thinking. Do you believe Arizona is facing a version of that shift? What evidence do you see?
- If Governor Hobbs tries to define you as too conservative or too extreme, how will you define her record to Arizona voters?
- What is the clearest choice voters will face in a Hobbs-Biggs general election?
Those questions are not theoretical. They go to the heart of Arizona’s choice in 2026.
Will Arizona continue under Governor Hobbs’ veto-driven, government-first record? Or will voters choose a different direction offered by Congressman Andy Biggs — one built around affordability, border security, parental rights, election integrity, accountability, and restoring trust in government?
Biggs answered directly. His answers create the contrast voters deserve to see. In plain terms:
Hobbs Represents the Record.
Biggs Represents the Alternative.
Voters Represent the Decision.
That is the framework for Part IV.
Veto Government or Relationship Government?
Governor Hobbs’ record-setting 541 vetoes during her first term are not merely a statistic. They are a governing record. Each veto tells Arizona voters something about what she blocked, what she protected, what she refused to negotiate, and what kind of executive power she chose to exercise.
Supporters may say the Governor used the veto pen to stop extreme legislation. Critics see something different: a Governor who used the veto pen as a governing strategy. That distinction matters. A Governor can veto bills when necessary, but when vetoes become the central governing tool, voters should ask whether the executive branch is leading, negotiating, or simply blocking. Biggs wrote:
“I’ve heard frequently from leaders across the political spectrum that Katie Hobbs has never spent any time building relationships with State Legislators. That’s a failure of leadership that leads to a lack of trust and ability to really accomplish big things for the state of Arizona.”
That is not a small criticism. It goes directly to governing competence. If a Governor does not build trust with legislators, then every major issue becomes harder: budgets, public safety, education, water, taxes, border security, election integrity, and emergency response.
Biggs contrasted Hobbs’ record with his own legislative experience:
“Communication, transparency, and looking for points of agreement have helped me as Senate President, Majority Leader, and Appropriations Chair when I was at the State Legislature. In 2015, I worked with Governor Ducey to pass a bipartisan budget that advanced conservative goals and still drew enough support to pass in a closely divided Senate.”
That answer creates the first major contrast of Part IV. Governor Hobbs represents veto government, driven by her DSA Coalition dominated Democratic party. Congressman Biggs is presenting relationship government, dominated by We the
People interests. One approach blocks. The other claims it can negotiate, lead, and still advance conservative policy.
That Is the First Decision Point: Governing Style.
What Did Hobbs Veto — And Why Should Voters Care?
A veto record is not merely about quantity. It is about consequences. Governor Hobbs’ record-setting 541 vetoes during her first term matter because each veto tells voters something about what she chose to block.
That is why Congressman Biggs’ answer is important. When asked which Hobbs vetoes Arizona voters should understand before November, he pointed first to accountability. He then responded:
“Voters should know that Governor Hobbs vetoed a bill that would require a governor to disclose personal donations from entities that have contracts with the state. And she vetoed this anti-pay-for-play legislation while under criminal investigation for allegedly doing what this bill was designed to prevent. This was a blatant conflict of interest.”
That answer goes directly to trust. If voters are being asked to give a Governor four more years of power, they have a right to ask whether that power has been exercised transparently. Biggs also pointed to affordability, housing, and tax relief. Biggs added:
“Arizonans need to know that Katie Hobbs’ policies on housing and her three vetoes of the Working Families Tax Cut have unnecessarily raised costs on our families and businesses.”
That is the second decision point for voters. Are vetoes being used to protect citizens from bad policy? Or are they blocking relief on issues families feel every day — housing, taxes, cost of living, and affordability? Biggs also raised school safety, writing:
“Governor Hobbs also vetoed legislation that would make it easier for schools to stay in communication with first responders in case of emergencies claiming there weren’t resources for this important Act.”
A veto can affect a family budget, housing costs, school safety, transparency, election integrity, and whether citizens trust their government at all. So, the question for voters is not simply how many bills Governor Hobbs vetoed. The question is: What did she veto — who benefited, and who paid the price?
Moderate Democrat or Part of The National Leftward Shift?
Part I warned that Arizona voters should not wait for a candidate to call himself or herself a socialist before recognizing government-control politics.
Part II showed that political shifts do not happen alone. They move through coalitions, party pressure, activist networks, unions, donor structures, and national messaging.
So, the next question is unavoidable: Is Governor Katie Hobbs governing as a moderate Democrat — or as part of the national leftward shift inside the Democratic Party? Biggs wrote:
“Governor Hobbs is dangerously incompetent; she is not a moderate. She is supported by the most extreme wing of her party. It isn’t the sheer volume of vetoes that she has imposed upon the state, it is the policies that she has prevented from becoming law that demonstrates her radicalism.”
That answer matters because Biggs is not asking voters to judge Hobbs only by tone, personality, or campaign branding. Biggs is asking voters to judge Hobbs by the policies she blocked. That brings this series back to its central warning: Mamdanization is not only about what politicians say.
It is about what they do with power. It is about whether government grows stronger while citizens, parents, taxpayers, and local communities lose ground. Biggs pointed to border security and election integrity as examples:
“She defunded the Border Security Strikeforce as part of the defund the police and open border position of the Hard Left. At the same time, she removed border barriers and also vetoed dozens of bills that would assure trustworthy elections and that those illegally in the country would not be voting.”
Those are not small disagreements over style. They go to the core questions voters must ask: Who controls the border? Who protects public safety? Who safeguards elections? Who decides whether citizenship matters? Who pays the price when ideology overrides enforcement? Biggs added
Biggs also pointed to legislation involving de-transitioning adults and medical accountability, writing:
“She vetoed a bill that would have allowed de-transitioning adults to hold accountable the medical professionals who groomed or imposed transitioning drugs or procedures upon them when they were minors.”
That is why the question is not merely whether Hobbs calls herself moderate. The question is whether her record reflects moderation. A moderate governs toward the middle. A moderate negotiates. A moderate listens beyond the activist base. A moderate does not use executive power to repeatedly block mainstream concerns on elections, border security, public safety, parental rights, medical accountability, transparency, and affordability. Biggs concluded:
“These are just two of hundreds of bills where Governor Hobbs has been able to kill mainstream ideas because she is dangerously incompetent at best and radical at worst.”
That is a hard statement. But Part IV is not the place to soften the contrast.
This is the final article in the series. The voters have seen the pattern, the coalition, and the ballot warfare. Now they must decide whether Governor Hobbs’ record represents moderation — or the Arizona version of the same leftward shift this series has been warning about from the beginning. That is the third decision point.
Is Arizona being governed from the center — or pulled toward the hard left by veto power, coalition pressure, and government-control thinking?
Parental Choice, ESA Accountability, And Government Control
One of the clearest places where the Mamdanization pattern shows itself is education.
Part I warned about government-control thinking.
Part II exposed the coalition pressure behind education politics.
Part III showed how the ESA fight has now moved toward the ballot.
So, Part IV must ask the practical question: Who should control a child’s education — parents or government systems?
Biggs position is clear:
“Educational freedom recognizes the rights of a parent to rear their child. It acknowledges that the parent knows and loves their child and can make rational, responsible choices regarding the education of their child.” (Parental Choice)
“It means that the government won’t come between the parent-child relationship. No secret grooming or indoctrination. No clandestine teaching objectives.”
“Parents need to exercise their parental responsibilities, including guiding the education of their child. That includes using their own taxpayer dollars to decide if the needs of their child are best met by a public, private, or charter school, homeschooling, or other education opportunity.” (taxpayer $$$ and educational freedom)
Government control asks: What system should the child fit into? Parent choice asks: What setting best serves this child? Government control protects institutions. Parent choice protects families. Government control centralizes decisions. Parent choice trusts parents. That is why the ESA fight matters far beyond one program.
That does not mean accountability should be ignored. The stronger answer is simple: protect the freedom and punish the abuse. Biggs position:
“I support ESA’s and will encourage their use and defend them against attacks.”
“At the same time, under the current governor, fraud and waste have grown in too many state programs. I abhor fraud wherever it is found. If there is fraud in the ESA program, we will root it out and end it.”
Voters should not have to choose between parental freedom and accountability. They should demand both. Fraud should be investigated, waste should be stopped, and bad actors should be removed. But parents should not lose educational freedom because politicians want to use isolated abuse as an excuse to centralize control.
That is the next decision point: Will Arizona protect educational freedom while punishing fraud — or use fraud as the excuse to dismantle parent choice?
Border Security or Photo-Op Politics?
Border security is not an abstract policy issue in Arizona. It affects public safety, law enforcement, fentanyl trafficking, human trafficking, schools, hospitals, housing, local communities, and families trying to live safely in their own neighborhoods.
That is why voters should ask whether a candidate treats the border as a governing responsibility — or as a photo opportunity. Biggs drew that contrast sharply, he wrote:
“In Governor Hobbs’ first week in office, she disbanded the Border Strike
Force put in place by Governor Ducey. Under Hobbs, Arizona is now one of the few states in our country where fentanyl overdose deaths are increasing. This is directly related to Hobbs’ failure to lead on border security and failure to keep our communities safe.”
“Going to the border for Governor Hobbs has been a photo-op. I have led the Congressional Border Security Caucus for more than seven years. I have brought more members of Congress to the border than anyone in history. In fact, it has been said that I have been to the border more often than many Border Patrol leaders.”
“I know the border and I will invigorate the Border Security Task Force, not attempt to defund it as Governor Hobbs has.”
A Governor does not have to solve federal immigration failure alone. But a Governor must decide whether Arizona will cooperate with law enforcement, support border communities, protect citizens, and use every lawful state tool available to reduce harm.
Biggs added:
“Governor Hobbs is inhibiting law enforcement operations. We will respect federal law and cooperate with federal police officers. We will respect our Sheriffs and police in this state.”
That is the contrast. Photo-op politics visits the border when cameras are present. Border leadership listens to sheriffs, police, Border Patrol, families, ranchers, and communities living with the consequences every day. Photo-op politics talks about compassion while ignoring the fentanyl deaths, trafficking networks, cartel violence, and community strain.
Border leadership understands that public safety begins with lawful order.
That is the next decision point: Will Arizona restore serious border leadership — or continue with photo-op politics while families and communities pay the price?
The First 100 Days and the Independent Voter Test
Campaign promises are easy. Governing is harder. That is why voters should ask every candidate what the first 100 days would actually look like — not the slogan, not the bumper sticker, not the applause line. Here is Biggs’ plan:
“From the day that I am elected I will begin working with legislators in a collaborative style that hasn’t been seen in Arizona. From election day until we are sworn into office in January 2027, we will be drafting and introducing legislation, crafting the state budget, preparing Executive Orders to roll back Governor Hobbs’s dangerously incompetent policies, and identifying the new heads of the various agencies and departments.”
That answer says the work begins immediately: legislation, budget, executive orders, agency leadership, and policy reversal. Continuing,
“We will focus on lowering the costs of living of all Arizonans.”
“We will make Arizona the safest place in the country to live, play, and do business so that our most important resource, our people can live the American dream.”
“We will create a world-class educational environment emphasizing educational attainment and protecting educational freedom.”
Those priorities connect directly to what voters are already feeling: affordability, public safety, education, freedom, and competence.
They also matter to independent voters, who may not follow every legislative battle but know whether groceries cost more, housing feels impossible, schools listen to parents, the border feels secure, and government seems accountable. Biggs:continued:
“You don’t have to agree with me on everything to know that what Governor Hobbs is doing right now isn’t working.”
“Independent voters don’t want a Governor under criminal investigation for an alleged pay-to-play scheme like Katie Hobbs. They don’t want a Governor like Katie Hobbs who has driven our state into the ditch when it comes to job growth, wage growth, and our daily cost of living.”
Biggs then moved from criticism to a governing offer:
“I have a concrete plan to bring those costs down that works for every Arizonan of every political background. We’re going to stop Wall Street investors from buying up Arizona homes and cut red tape, so more homes get built.”
Biggs also connected schools, border security, and government accountability:
“On schools, I want results and accountability, not another political fight. On the border, my focus is to stop human trafficking and the fentanyl killing Arizonans and endangering kids. A secure border leads to safer communities across Arizona, a public-safety issue every parent understands.”
“And government should answer to you, not to the well-connected donors that politicians like Katie Hobbs do favors for.”
Biggs concluded with:
”If you want a governor who’ll lower your costs, protect your kids, and get something done, we’re on the same side no matter how you’re registered as a voter.”
That is the independent voter test: Can a candidate speak beyond the party base and explain how his policies help families who are tired, busy, skeptical, and not interested in political theater?
The Mamdanization Question
This series uses the word “Mamdanization” to describe a political pattern. It does not mean Governor Hobbs is Zohran Mamdani. It does not mean Arizona is New York City.
It does not mean every Democrat is a socialist. But the Democratic Party, national and States, have been overtaken by the Mamdani coalition of DSA members, communist sympathizers, jihadists, and foreign money influencers seeking to steer elections away not just from Republicans, but from conservatives, moderates, and independents who don’t “toe the line” and submit to their radical agenda of remaking America by destroying our Constitutional Republic.
It means voters should watch for the governing pattern: government-control thinking, affordability promises tied to expanded state power, coalition pressure, ballot warfare, executive obstruction, and policies that move power away from citizens and toward government systems. Biggs cautions:
“I’ll leave the labels to the pundits. What I care about is if your government is making your life more affordable or more expensive — and Governor Hobbs has made it more expensive.”
“What worries me isn’t a slogan; it’s the mindset of Hobbs that says her government knows better than you how to spend your money and live your life. The result is predictable: higher costs and less accountability.”
That is the heart of this series. Government knows better. Government spends better. Government chooses better. Government regulates better. Government defines fairness, education, security, and what citizens are allowed to keep, say, buy, build, drive, teach, question, or challenge. As Biggs observes:
“You can see it right here in Arizona. Katie Hobbs’s record-setting vetoes show she doesn’t trust Arizonans to run their own lives. Her moratorium on home-building is a gift to the radical environmentalists who want to stop Arizona’s growth. Her push for more expensive green energy is a giveaway to the utilities. And her taxpayer-funded payoff to a political donor shows exactly who she’s looking out for — and it isn’t you.”
“That’s the pattern: government that grows, spends, and blocks, while taking care of insiders.”
That sentence ties Parts I, II, and III together.
Part I named the pattern.
Part II exposed the coalition and the insiders.
Part III followed the machinery to the ballot.
Part IV now asks whether Arizona voters want more of it.
Biggs’ answer also gives voters the alternative:
“The antidote isn’t more drama or more ideology. It’s a governor who cuts your costs, respects your paycheck, and remembers who he works for.”
That is the contrast: government control versus citizen control, insider power versus taxpayer accountability, veto politics versus governing leadership, and the machine versus the voter.
If Hobbs Tries to Define Biggs as Extreme
Every campaign tries to define the opponent. But voters should recognize when a campaign is trying to make the election about a label, instead of an actual, verifiable record. Biggs observes:
“Katie Hobbs can’t run on her own record of chaos and incompetence, so she’ll try to make this election about me instead of her results.”
That is the political battle line. One side will likely try to make the election about fear of the challenger. The other side is trying to make the election about the incumbent’s record. Biggs offers his own record::
“Here’s my record of service: a former prosecutor protecting the most vulnerable in our community, and a Senate President who balanced Arizona’s budget and left a surplus by working across the aisle. In Washington, I worked with Democrats to pass Right to Try legislation for patients facing terminal illness, and with John McCain to pass the Ashlynne Mike AMBER Alert in Indian Country to protect children in every Arizona community.”
That answer pushes back against caricature. A candidate can be conservative without being careless, firm without being reckless, and principled without being unable to govern, as opposed to Hobbs’ record:
“On Katie Hobbs’s side is a record of chaos and incompetence. Hobbs inherited a surplus and drove us into a billion-dollar hole. She set the state record with more than 540 vetoes of bills passed by the State Legislature, including efforts to lower your costs. She froze homebuilding while families can’t afford rent. Arizona ranks in the bottom-five for affordability on her watch, and Hobbs is under criminal investigation for funneling millions in taxpayer money to a political donor.”
Labels are not evidence. Records are evidence. That is why voters must not let either campaign, either party, either media narrative, or either political machine define the election without evidence. Biggs summarized the race this way:
“This race is about competence versus chaos, and I know Arizonans will see my vision to Restore the American Dream as the best pathway forward for our state.”
The Clearest Choice: Competence Versus Chaos
After all the slogans, labels, accusations, mailers, ads, debates, and campaign noise, voters eventually have to reduce the election to a clear choice. Congressman Biggs did exactly that. When asked what the clearest choice would be in a Hobbs-Biggs general election, he answered:
“Arizonans cannot afford four more years of Katie Hobbs. Voters will have a clear choice of competence versus chaos, a vision of prosperity versus vetoes, and integrity versus a politician under criminal investigation for a pay-to-play scheme.”
That is the final contrast of Part IV: competence versus chaos, prosperity versus vetoes, integrity versus insider politics.
Biggs then described what he is offering voters:
“I’m offering the opposite: a former prosecutor who protected families, a budget-balancer who worked with both parties, and a concrete plan to put money back in your pocket.”
“We are going to lower the bills hurting our bottom line, increase the amount of homes families can afford, and cut the taxes that impact our families the most.”
And then Biggs gave the clearest line of the entire Q&A:
“The Clearest Way I Can Say It: Katie Hobbs Looks Out For Her Donors. I’ll Look Out For You.”
That is where the series lands.
Part I warned voters to recognize government-control politics.
Part II exposed the coalition and the insiders.
Part III showed how the machinery reaches the ballot.
Part IV now asks voters to decide who government should serve: the donors, the insiders, the unions, the activist networks, the bureaucracy, the political machine — or the people?
The Final Answer Belongs To The Voter
Part I created awareness.
Part II exposed the coalition.
Part III followed the machinery to the ballot.
Part IV brought the question home to the voter.
Because the Mamdanization of politics is not only about one candidate in New York, one Governor in Arizona, one veto, one ballot measure, one lawsuit, one union, one activist group, or one campaign slogan.
It is about whether voters can still see clearly when political machinery works overtime to define the race before citizens ask the questions.
That is why Arizona matters. And that is why voters in every state should pay attention. Arizona is the case study. The questions belong to every voter.
The tactics are not confined by state lines. Coalitions can be copied. Narratives can be exported. Ballot strategies can be repeated. Legal theories can be tested in one state and used in another. Campaign slogans can be nationalized overnight. Candidates can be branded before voters know what they actually believe. Citizens can be maneuvered before they realize the machinery is already moving.
That is why voters must stop waiting for someone else to explain the race:
- They must ask the questions themselves
- They must examine the record.
- They must study the vetoes.
- They must read the ballot language.
- They must follow the lawsuits.
- They must watch the money.
- They must identify the coalition.
- They must demand direct answers.
- They must refuse to be manipulated by slogans, fear, friendly titles, or campaign theater.
Because once the ballot arrives, the machinery has already done much of its work. The only question left is whether voters have done theirs.
In Arizona, the choice is now clear:
Hobbs Represents Her Record – Biggs Represents the Alternative –
Voters Represent the Decision.
That is where this series ends.
Not with fear.
Not with confusion.
Not with surrender.
But with a call to action.
Because once citizens understand the pattern, the coalition, the ballot warfare, and the governing choice, they no longer have the luxury of standing still.
It comes down to this: Who will YOU vote for?
The Patriots who support our Constitutional Republic, or the Mamdani Coalition who favor the Total Destruction of our Constitutional Republic …
We Can No Longer Stand Idly By and Watch Our Destruction Happen – Our Time to Act Is NOW!
by Linda Brickman
©2026 Linda Brickman All Rights Reserved.
The post PART IV — The Unstoppable Mamdanization of Arizona appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.