The Arizona political divide: bomb throwers vs. pragmatists who want to govern

Hobbs should consider propounding, before the election, a center-left agenda that doesn't scare right-leaning swing voters that she would pursue if given a Democratic legislative majority.

There are numerous political divides in the United States. In Arizona, the most consequential is rarely directly discussed. That is the divide between political leaders whose primary interest is in tossing rhetorical Molotov cocktails at opponents, on the one hand. And, on the other, those of whatever ideological orientation – liberal, conservative, centrist – who have a pragmatic interest in governing. 

This divide is most acute in the Republican Party. At the national level, there are policy differences between the ascendant MAGA populist nationalists and pragmatic conservatives interested in governing, such as tariffs and industrial policy. 

There are also tactical differences. When Kyrsten Sinema helped forge a bipartisan proposal to sharply reduce abuses of the asylum system on immigration, pragmatic conservatives were initially willing to go along as a step in the right direction. MAGA members of Congress denounced it, even before Donald Trump, openly wanting to preserve the issue for his presidential ambitions, pulled the rug out from under the effort.

Now, the issues that divide the MAGA populists and the pragmatic conservatives at the national level are irrelevant at the state and local level. And the tactical differences are not nearly as frequent or important. Yet the division in GOP state and local politics in Arizona is, if anything, even sharper and more bitter than at the national level.

Primary election results confirmed that MAGA populists remain, by far, the dominant force in state GOP politics. They won the overwhelming majority of contested races. However, it wasn’t the clean sweep of the 2022 primary. Some pragmatists beat MAGA populists in county races, including supervisor candidates Tom Galvin and Kate Brophy McGee and county attorney incumbent Rachel Mitchell. 

However, at the county level, MAGA populists got the scalp they most wanted, that of Recorder Stephen Richer.

It’s impossible to exaggerate how important Richer has been to defending the truth about the integrity of Maricopa County elections against the avalanche of MAGA lies to wish away electoral defeats. Richer helped lead the effort to painstakingly and thoroughly rebut each and every conspiratorial twist and turn. It created a record that prevented election denialism from spreading beyond the impenetrable MAGA fever swamp. 

Richer was also deeply interested in governing, immersing himself in the details of office administration and opportunities for improvements.

His opponent, Justin Heap, has already accomplished what was his principal objective in running, defenestrating Richer. Given how indifferent he has been with following the rules for his own paperwork, it’s difficult to believe he has even a remote interest in actually governing, providing effective management of the nuts and bolts of what the department does on a daily basis. His rhetorical Molotov cocktail hit its target. His job, as a MAGA populist, is done. 

When it comes to governing in Arizona, the MAGA populist track record stinks. MAGA populists now thoroughly dominate the Republican caucuses in the Legislature. Among the first things they did was squander a $2.5 billion surplus. It was the most fiscally irresponsible act I’ve seen in nearly a half century of observing and participating in Arizona policy decisions and developments. And, to the extent conservatism includes prudent management of public finances, also one of the most unconservative.

A political party truly interested in governing wouldn’t trade Ken Bennett as a state senator for Mark Finchem, as GOP voters in the Prescott area did. Bennett has a long track record of successful governing, including reducing the state income tax and expanding school choice, even with a Democratic governor, Janet Napolitano, at the helm. Finchem would have difficulty passing a piece of legislation even if he were given proxies for all the other votes. 

While MAGA candidates rule the roost in GOP primaries, they have fallen flat in statewide general elections. The swing voters who decide races in Arizona these days don’t like them. The question is whether this will trickle down to races for the state Legislature and county offices. 

Nationally, the divide between bomb throwers and pragmatists who want to govern also partitions the Democratic Party. In Arizona, so far, not so much.

By the time Sinema vacated the central Valley congressional district she held in 2018, it was clear that what was intended to be a swing district was actually quite blue. Open seats in safe partisan congressional districts usually unleash a torrent of ambitious local politicians wanting to climb the ladder, who compete for primary votes with bomb-thrower rhetoric. However, the way was cleared for former Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton, who falls on the pragmatic governing side of the ledger, to succeed Sinema with a minimum of electoral fuss. 

Similarly, the way was cleared for Mark Kelly to be the Democratic nominee for an open U.S. Senate seat in 2020. Kelly also falls on the pragmatic governing side and won the general election. 

The candidates Democrats have fielded for county offices seem to be pragmatic governing types rather than bomb throwers. And they didn’t face primary opposition. As of this writing, in two contested Democratic congressional primaries, the arguably most pragmatic candidates are in the lead.

It’s not clear which side of this dividing line Gov. Katie Hobbs falls. She’s desperate to escape the clutches of the MAGA Republican Legislature, with good reason. However, it is unclear what she would do with a Democratic majority, or if she understands how to maximize the chances of having one.

After the primary election, she issued an incendiary statement that the general election for the Legislature pitted Democrats against “insurrectionists, white supremacists, and indicted fake electors.” Politically, this is an idiotic framing. To swing voters, who will decide which party controls the Legislature, this makes Hobbs and Democrats look like the mirror image of the MAGA Republicans they don’t like. 

If Hobbs wants to be constructive, she should consider, ironically enough, borrowing a page from Newt Gingrich’s 1994 playbook. Before the 1994 election, Gingrich propounded the Contract with America, laying out what Republicans would attempt to do if given control of the U.S. House after eons of Democratic rule. It provided a unity platform for Republican candidates that was reassuring to voters. And Republicans took over the House.

Hobbs should consider propounding a center-left agenda that she will pursue if given a Democratic majority in the Legislature. That agenda should reassure, not scare, right-leaning swing voters alienated by MAGA populists. In 2018, there were roughly 225,000 voters who favored Sinema for U.S. Senate and Doug Ducey, a pragmatic conservative, for governor. The path to Democratic control of the Legislature runs through voters who found Ducey acceptable as governor, but Kari Lake unacceptable. 

One of Arizona’s advantages has been that, as a general proposition, we have been well-governed, at both a state and local level. That advantage may be slipping away.

Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.