PART II - The Mamdanization of Arizona - Joe Hoft
Guest post by Linda Brickman
How Did This Happen? The Coalition Behind the Shift
ADVERTISEMENTPart I created Awareness:
Part I. The Mamdanization of Governor Katie Hobbs and the Arizona Democrat Party
It showed how socialist-style politics, ballot warfare, and government-control thinking are already showing up in Arizona through Governor Katie Hobbs’ veto record, ESA battles, budget fights, executive power, and the Arizona Democratic Party’s leftward shift.
Part II asks the next question: How did this happen?How did America move from “We the People” to “government knows best”?
ADVERTISEMENTHow did Government policies and priorities go from “Citizens First” to “Illegal Immigrants” First?
How did parents become obstacles instead of authorities?
How did Freedom of Speech and First Amendment rights become suppressed and censored?
How did state sovereignty become something to be worked around?
How did free enterprise become something to be punished?
How did constitutional limits become inconveniences?
ADVERTISEMENTHow did ballot measures, courts, unions, NGOs, activist networks, donor machines, political consultants, socialist organizations, and Islamist political movements begin pushing in the same general direction?
And how did so many voters not see it until now?
The answer:
A massive, organized, well-funded, professionally messaged coalition that has learned how to move power away from families, voters, states, local communities, and elected Legislatures — and move it into the hands of government agencies, activist organizations, courts, unions, nonprofits, political machines, and ideological movements.
Part I showed what that shift looks like in Arizona through Governor Hobbs’ veto record,
ESA battles, budget fights, executive power, and ballot-measure warfare.
Part II follows the money, the machinery, and the movement behind the shift.
Mamdani Made the Quiet Part Public…One of the unintended consequences of Zohran Mamdani’s rise is that he made the quiet part public, and that has become a “lightning rod” or “license” for all coalition members to do the same.
Ideas that once moved under softer labels — “equity,” “justice,” “affordability,” “democracy protection,” “community organizing,” or “public investment” — are now being spoken more openly as socialist-style policy, government-control thinking, and organized political transformation of our 250-year-old, Constitutional Republic.
But that visibility matters.
Because now MORE CITIZENS are closely watching, listening, reading, and talking about it.
And they are reacting to this narrative, and starting to see that this is not only happening in Blue States and Cities like New York City, Washington, D.C., or on progressive college campuses, but EVERYWHERE!
And when citizens begin watching closely, they start to see that this is not only happening in New York, Washington, D.C., or on college campuses.
Independent Groups that once operated quietly or behind friendlier labels, collectively are now openly recruiting, training, fundraising, litigating, organizing, and pushing candidates into local and state politics.
Some come through the 237 and growing Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) state chapter organizations, and dozens of affiliated caucuses and factions, including the Marxist Unity Group (MUG), an Orthodox Marxist caucus emphasizing democratic centralism, overthrow of the U.S. Constitution, and establishment of a socialist republic.
Some come through national activist networks.
Some come through union-backed political operations.
Some come through ballot-measure campaigns.
Some come through NGOs, PACs, donor networks, legal groups, and online recruitment pipelines.
Some come through radical ideological movements that do not share America’s founding principles, constitutional limits, religious liberty, free enterprise, parental authority, state sovereignty, or individual freedom.
They do not all have to be the same organization to move in the same direction.
And that is the point.
The coalition works because different groups can use different language, different tactics, and different public faces while still pushing toward the same goals, objectives and results, including:
More centralized power.That is how the SHIFT happens.
Not all at once.
Not always under one banner.
Not always with one leader.
But through a coalition.
The Coalition Does Not Need One Name to Have One Direction
This is where many citizens get confused and distracted.
They look for one organization, one villain, one meeting, one document, or one master plan.
But political power often does not work that simply.
A coalition does not require every group to have the same name.
It does not require every donor to share the same motive.
It does not require every activist to understand the whole strategy.
It does not require every candidate to admit the final destination.
It only requires enough groups to push in the same direction at the same time.
That is what we are watching.
Democratic socialists may use the language of class warfare and economic justice.
Public-sector unions may use the language of protecting schools, teachers, and public services.
NGOs may use the language of equity, inclusion, democracy, humanitarian aid, or community support.
Legal organizations may use the language of rights, access, and representation.
Ballot-measure professionals may use the language of citizen democracy.
Open-border advocates may use the language of compassion.
Censorship advocates may use the language of safety and misinformation control.
Islamist political movements may use the language of civil rights, anti-discrimination, foreign-policy activism, or community representation.
Each lane sounds different.
But when the policies all move toward more government control, weaker borders, less parental authority, fewer election safeguards, more centralized power, and less accountability to ordinary citizens, voters should stop pretending the lanes are unrelated.
The public face may change.
The slogans may change.
The target may change.
But the direction does not.
The Language Is Part of the StrategyOne reason this shift advanced so far is because the language was softened.
Socialism became “affordability.”
Government control became “public investment.”
Censorship became “content moderation.”
Open borders became “welcoming communities.”
Weak election safeguards became “voter access.”
Union control became “protecting public education.”
Abortion expansion became “reproductive freedom.”
Gender ideology became “inclusion.”
Centralized power became “democracy protection.”
The words sound harmless until citizens examine what the policies actually do.That is why Part I mattered. It showed the governing pattern.
Part II shows the machinery behind it.
The people pushing this agenda understand something very important:
If they say the hard part openly, many voters will reject it.
So, they say it softly.
They package it emotionally.
They accuse opponents of cruelty.
They claim the moral high ground.
They use children, families, minorities, immigrants, teachers, workers, and democracy itself as shields for policies that often move power away from citizens and toward institutions.
That is not accidental.
That is deliberate messaging.
The Ideological Engine: Democratic Socialism Goes MainstreamFor years, democratic socialism was treated by many Americans as something outside the mainstream.
That is changing – Mamdani’s rise made it harder to deny.
The Democratic Socialists of America and similar movements no longer operate only as fringe voices yelling from the outside. They recruit candidates, support campaigns, influence platforms, train activists, shape public messaging, and pressure Democratic officials from both inside and outside the party.
Their message is simple: government should guarantee more, manage more, fund more, regulate more, and redistribute more.
To supporters, that sounds compassionate.
To critics, it sounds like the steady replacement of free enterprise, local control, personal responsibility, and constitutional limits with government dependency.
This is why Mamdani matters beyond New York.He is not the entire movement.
He is the symbol that made the movement visible.
Once voters see the symbol, they can begin recognizing the structure behind it.
The Warnings Are No Longer TheoreticalThe warnings are no longer coming only from old history books, or conservative theory.
They are showing up in current headlines.
On the same day this article was being prepared, Gateway Pundit published a video-based report showing DSA members describing the goals of their movement in their own words. Another article published that morning warned bluntly that socialism is not the final destination, but the bridge to communism — and that individual rights do not survive the journey unchanged.
Those articles matter because they show that the debate is no longer abstract.
The socialist wing is not merely asking for a few generous programs.
It is talking about power.
It is talking about systems.
It is talking about replacing the structures that protect individual liberty with structures that concentrate control.
The Socialist Wing Is No Longer WhisperingThe point is not speculation.
The socialist wing is increasingly saying these things openly.
A 2026 “Tasks & Perspectives” document from the Marxist Unity Group of the Democratic Socialists of America states in its introduction that its task is to “merge socialism and the workers’ movement.” The document goes on to describe capitalism as a system to be overcome, connects economic demands to political demands, urges support for DSA electing a coherent bloc in Congress, and frames electoral work as part of a larger project for socialist political power.
The socialist wing is no longer hiding the objective. It is organizing openly, training candidates, building coalitions, and using elections as a pathway to power.
That matters.
Because it shows that the public language of “affordability,” “justice,” “democracy,” and “working families” often sits on top of a much deeper ideological project.
This is not merely about one rent freeze.
It is not merely about one bus fare.
It is not merely about one childcare program.
It is about building political power.
It is about using elections, unions, ballot initiatives, candidate pipelines, activist campaigns, and public messaging to move socialist ideas from the margins into governing institutions.
And once those ideas enter governing institutions, they do not stay in New York.
They move wherever the machinery is organized enough to carry them.
Mamdani did not create the movement. He made the movement visible.
The Institutional Muscle: Unions, Education Networks, and Public-Sector Power
In Arizona, one of the clearest examples of institutional power is the education fight – the current ESA battle did not appear out of nowhere.
It is part of a much larger struggle over who controls education dollars, who controls curriculum, who controls accountability, and who decides what is best for children.
Parents see school choice as freedom.
The education establishment often sees school choice as a threat.
That difference explains much of the political war over ESAs.
Public-sector unions and public-school advocacy organizations understand that education is not only about classrooms. It is also about money, political power, organizing capacity, campaign volunteers, ballot initiatives, and long-term ideological influence over the development of our children as our Future Citizens.
That is why education fights become so fierce.
The issue is not only where a child goes to school.
The issue is who gets to decide.
When parents control the decision, power is decentralized.
When government systems control the decision, power remains centralized.
That is the divide.
And that is why the ESA fight belongs in the Mamdanization discussion.
It shows how the coalition works at the State level.
The Money Pipeline: Donors, PACs, NGOs, and Political MachinesMovements require:
They also require donors willing to fund the machinery long before the average voter even knows a fight has begun. And those donors are not always state-specific, but are drawn from a pool of both domestic and foreign sources, NGOs, PACS, dark money sources, and money laundering “mule” schemes through their controlled donation portals such as Act Blue.
That is how policies appear to emerge suddenly when, in reality, they have been organized for years.
By the time voters see the ballot measure, the campaign mailer, the spontaneous but well-funded paid protesters, the lawsuit, or the candidate ad, the machinery has often already done its work.
The coalition does not simply wait for elections:
Then it calls the result “democracy.”
But democracy without transparency becomes manipulation.And voter participation without honest disclosure becomes political theater.
All voters, including Arizona voters, need to know who is funding the message, who is writing the language, who is recruiting the candidates, who is organizing the pressure, and who benefits when the policy passes, and the candidates are installed.
The Legal and Ballot MachineryPart I introduced ballot-measure warfare.
Part II explains why it matters.
When the Legislature will not pass a policy, the coalition can go to the courts.
When the courts are not enough, it can go to the ballot.
When the ballot is confusing, it can rely on slogans.
When voters ask questions, it can accuse them of opposing children, teachers, minorities, immigrants, democracy, or compassion.
This is how complicated policy fights are turned into emotional campaigns.
A voter may think he is voting for “accountability,” when he is actually voting to limit parent choice.
A voter may think she is voting for “democracy,” when she is actually voting to weaken safeguards.
A voter may think he is voting for “public education,” when he is actually voting to protect union power.
A voter may think she is voting for “civil rights,” when she is actually voting for policies that reduce local authority or state sovereignty.
And that is why Part III of this series will focus directly on ballot-measure warfare.
Because the ballot has become one of the coalition’s most powerful weapons.
Islamist Political Activism: The Narrative Critics Will Try to SilenceThere is one part of this coalition discussion that many people are afraid to touch.
They should not be.
But it must be discussed carefully and truthfully.
America protects religious liberty. That is one of the freedoms this series is defending.
But religious liberty does not require political blindness.
When Islamist political organizations, anti-American ideological movements, foreign-policy activist networks, or groups with documented radical affiliations enter American politics, influence candidates, pressure public officials, shape policy debates, or partner with other left-wing movements, voters have a right to ask questions, including:
Who are they?
What do they advocate?
Who funds them?
Who do they support?
What policies do they push?
What candidates do they help?
What organizations do they partner with?
What do they say publicly — and what do they say to their own audiences?
Those are not bigoted questions.
They are civic questions.
They are national-security questions.
They are state-sovereignty questions.
They are voter-information questions.
For too long, many Americans were told that asking those questions was hateful.
That is how political scrutiny gets shut down.
That is how censorship works.
That is how citizens are trained to look away.
But voters are not required to surrender their common sense.If any organization seeks influence in American government, it should expect public scrutiny.
If any movement wants access to elected officials, ballot campaigns, public schools, law enforcement policy, foreign-policy debates, or taxpayer-funded programs, citizens have the right to examine its record.
No group gets immunity from scrutiny simply because it uses the language of civil rights.
No group gets immunity from scrutiny simply because it claims victim status.
No group gets immunity from scrutiny simply because politicians are afraid of being called names, or need the group’s voter base for elections.
That is not hate. That is accountability.
The Candidate Pipeline: Recruited, Trained, Funded, and ProtectedThe coalition also understands that policy follows people.
If you want to change government, you change who gets into government.
By the time many voters see a candidate on a ballot, that candidate may already have been shaped by a political pipeline.
This does not mean every candidate is controlled.
It does not mean every candidate lacks personal beliefs.
It does not mean voters have no choice.
But it does mean citizens must ask better questions:
Too often, voters are not choosing from a truly organic field. They are choosing from candidates already recruited, financed, trained, branded, and protected by political machines. They are Chosen and Beholden (remember the movie: the Manchurian Candidate?).
That is not conspiracy – That is modern politics.And citizens who refuse to examine the machinery behind the candidate are choosing to vote with one eye closed.
Why the State and Local Levels Matter
Most citizens watch national politics.
They watch presidential races.
They watch Congress.
They watch cable news.
They watch Washington, D.C.
But the coalition understands something many voters forget:
Power is often easier to move at the state and local level.
That is where the machinery does its quietest and most effective work.
By the time a national figure like Mamdani appears, the groundwork has already been laid in hundreds of smaller places.
That is why Arizona matters.That is why Governor Hobbs’ record matters.That is why ESA matters.That is why ballot measures matter.That is why voters must pay attention before the national story becomes a state law, a school policy, a budget line, a veto, a lawsuit, or a ballot proposition.
The SHIFT does not arrive all at once.
Then one day citizens wake up and wonder how government became so powerful and they became so powerless.
That is how it happens. Over and Over again.
The Common Thread Is Control
Part I Showed the Pattern.
Part II Exposes the Machinery.
And the common thread is control:
LESS CONTROL for…
MORE CONTROL for…
THAT IS THE REAL SHIFT.
That Is the Coalition Behind the Mamdanization Of Arizona.It is not only about Mamdani. It is not only about Hobbs. It is not only about New York City. It is not only about Arizona.
It is about whether Americans everywhere still believe that power belongs first to the people — or whether they are willing to watch that power move quietly into the hands of institutions that were never elected to govern them.
The Question Arizona Voters Must AskSo, the question is not simply whether voters like or dislike a Governor Hobbs.
It is not simply whether voters agree or disagree with a Zohran Mamdani.
It is not simply whether voters support or oppose one ballot measure, one veto, one union, one PAC, one activist group, or one candidate.
The deeper question is this: Who is really gaining power, and at whose expense?
The coalition behind the shift is not powerful because every group is identical.
It is powerful because too many groups are moving in the same direction while too many citizens are still looking the other way.
Mamdani made more people look.
Now Arizona voters must keep looking.
Because once citizens see the machinery, they have a responsibility to expose it, question it, challenge it, and stop pretending it is not there.
Part I created awareness.
Part II exposes the coalition.
Part III will show how that coalition uses ballot measures, courts, initiatives, referendums, and voter confusion as political weapons.
And Part IV will ask what Arizona voters must decide before they cast their ballots.
The fire is already lit. Now voters need to know who is feeding it.
The Fire Is Already LitPart I created awareness.
Part II exposed the machinery.
Now Arizona voters have to decide whether they are willing to keep looking.
Because once citizens see the pattern, they can no longer pretend it is accidental.
They can no longer pretend the same ideas, the same slogans, the same organizations, the same donor networks, the same ballot tactics, and the same government-control thinking keep appearing by coincidence.
They can no longer pretend that parents are losing authority by accident.
They can no longer pretend that state sovereignty is being weakened by accident.
They can no longer pretend that free enterprise is being punished by accident.
They can no longer pretend that constitutional limits are being treated as obstacles by accident.
And they can no longer pretend that “We the People” still means much if the people are not told who is funding, organizing, training, litigating, recruiting, and writing the policies placed before them.
That is the coalition behind the shift.
It does not always use one name.
It does not always march under one banner.
It does not always tell voters the final destination.
But it keeps moving power in the same direction:
And toward government agencies, activist organizations, unions, courts, donor networks, political machines, and ideological movements that believe they know better than the people they claim to represent.
That is why Mamdani matters.
He did not create the movement.
He made the movement visible.
That is why Hobbs matters.
Her veto record, executive actions, ESA battles, budget fights, and ballot conflicts show how that same governing instinct can operate here in Arizona.
And that is why voters must pay attention now.
Because the next battlefield is not theoretical.
It is the ballot.
Part III will examine how ballot measures, initiatives, referendums, legislative referrals, lawsuits, and carefully written campaign language are being used as political weapons — not merely to inform voters, but to maneuver them.
The fire is already lit.
Now Arizona voters need to know who is feeding it, who is funding it, and what they are really being asked to approve before they cast their ballots.
AND LET THIS SERVE AS A WARNING TO EVERY CITIZEN IN EVERY STATE AND U.S. TERRITORY.
MAMDANIZATION IS COMING TO YOU, IF IT’S NOT ALREADY THERE!by Linda Brickman
©2026 Linda Brickman All Rights Reserved.
Part III — When Ballot Measures Become Political Warfare
The third article will focus on how initiatives, referendums, legislative referrals, lawsuits, and competing ballot language are being used to move major policy fights out of the Legislature and directly onto the ballot.
Part IV — What Arizona Voters Should Ask Before They Vote
The final article will bring the discussion home to the 2026 Governor’s race, including the expected contrast between Governor Katie Hobbs and Congressman Andy Biggs, and the questions Arizona voters should ask before casting their ballots.