Can we stop political meanness? Rusty Bowers says change needs to come from the public

You don’t have to look too far, or too hard, to find politicians not being all that nice to each other.

From Washington, D.C., to state capitols — including Phoenix — to city and county governments, name-calling and smack talking seem all too common. Now, there have always been political and policy differences — not to mention personal ones. And, pols of yesteryear were not immune from calling each other names and lobbing personal attacks.

But with social media and other forms of communication able to amplify those attacks, for a lot of people, the problem feels worse today than in the past.

To get some perspective, The Show called on Rusty Bowers. He spent around two decades in the Arizona Legislature over two stints, including four years as speaker of the House. Bowers was also a 2022 recipient of the Profile in Courage Award from the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, after he stood up to efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Bowers came by KJZZ's studios to talk about the current state of politics — and what comes to mind when thinking about how people in politics communicate with each other and treat others.

Full conversation

RUSTY BOWERS: Well, of late, unfortunately, because of volume and speed, acrimony comes to mind. In our personal state, it's been getting more difficult to bring sides together. That's being charitable. To get a budget out especially, or because ideologically entrenched parties don't visualize well that everybody in the place is elected and that the people who elected them did so hoping to have a voice.

Actually, they're all lobbyists. They lobby for their district, and everybody in the district has a voice that — especially those who are brave enough to register to vote and participate actively.

So, I once remember a friend who could talk fast. He's kind of like a talk show host. He could talk fast and very forcefully. And I finally said, you know, speed and volume don't make truth. It's important to listen and respectfully disagree, but listen and try to understand why I think the way I do. And I can't tell you that I'm — my career is illuminative of just perfection, because I think early on I was pretty dogmatic. But over time that changed, and people helped change it.

MARK BRODIE: I'm curious, you mentioned, you know, sort of earlier in your career and you were in the Legislature, then you were out for a little while, then you came back. Did you notice a difference when you came back the second time?

BOWERS: Absolutely. Absolutely. And through that time, I noticed, because I interfaced with the Legislature from the Rock Products Association and EVIT. And it was more and more fun to take cheap shots and you know, pose for the camera. The cameras made a big difference on the floor, because people played to it. And the more intimate connection between the people outside your windows and the legislators, it became more theatrical.

So, I think all those things need to be understood. And hopefully, if someone wants to do well, you use them correctly.

BRODIE: What kind of impact do you find that all of that is having, that acrimony, the lack of collegiality, what does that mean for actually lawmaking, policymaking?

BOWERS: Well, it's not just lawmaking policy. I'd like to push that a little further. I have a neighbor. He may not be happy about it, but wonderful people. And they always ask him, what can we do to help you? You know, he'll come over. Every time I have a computer problem, he shows up. I get it. He just has that smile, OK. He starts heading back to the office, and it's like he knows the drill.

They're awesome folks, and I try to reciprocate. I enjoy being around them. I don't have to go bug them. You know, we take out each other's garbage and, you know, share a well and all that stuff. I would do almost anything I could in the regular course of life, and probably in the extremes, I would do more for them.

I have another neighbor, this person complains and yells and is rude. And after all the hubbub, cornered me in the front and yelled at me for doing whatever I said that was wrong, you know, about certain political figures.

BRODIE: You're talking mostly about the 2020 election here.

BOWERS: Sure. And if I thought, OK, "Who am I going to go help today?" It is more natural, intuitive, if Carlos needed help, I'm helping him. If the other folks need it, A) they probably wouldn't ask. But it's more difficult to establish a workable esprit de corps with one over another.

Now, you multiply that times 300 million. That's what happens in our country. There are some who think that it makes the country strong. It does not. It makes it weak. Because some will just say, "Hey, man, you're on your own. Got a problem. I'm triaging a wreck. I'm going to go to that person before I go to you." You know, it's, the respect is then, it's almost religious. I'm doing this because I'm required to respect another human being, not because I want to.

BRODIE: And that matters, right?

BOWERS: It matters — in the little things and in the big things.

BRODIE: When you look at your experience in the state Legislature and then you look at, you know, you mentioned 300 million people. You know, how the country is sort of operating.

Do you see, for example, the state following the federal government in this respect or the other way around? Or is this kind of happening concurrently, that politics on sort of all levels —and we see it on the county level, we see it on city government levels — that people just don't necessarily treat each other all that well and aren't that nice to each other?

BOWERS: It didn't start at the state, and it didn't start at the feds. John Rhodes was a statesman. Others throughout my time, you know, at the national level are marvelous people and took hard decisions. But were able to do it with a modicum of civility. And the same way here.

But it's more difficult because the stakes seem to be higher, and it's easier to move angry people. So if you can get people mad and keep them that way and always be worried and concerned and unsure and just stress those, stress those, stress those — it's easier to say, "If you just follow me, we'll be fine."

BRODIE: You talked about how it's easier to move people to your side when they're angry. But there are sometimes questions about if the acrimony we see during debate is real or performative.

But during our conversation, it sounded to me like you were saying that at least to some extent it's real, that policymakers genuinely don't like each other and mean the angry things they're saying to and about each other rather than just using that divisiveness as a way to win an argument or votes in the next election.

Am I hearing that correctly?

BOWERS: Well, the idea of being A) if you're there, if you're in the battle in that arena, you usually choose to be. For whatever your reasons on a scale of, of depraved to perfect, you know.

BRODIE: Yeah. Nobody accidentally ends up elected to something.

BOWERS: Well, I mean, I guess I came close ... somebody dared me to run, so I did. So staying there is one way or the other desirable, less so now for those who want to go and have a kind of an even keel in their lives. One way or the other, it's less desirable, more pressure to say this is not worth it, which opens up more opportunities — but it's also a weapon.

I mean, the guys who said to me, "We're coming after you ... you didn't do what we wanted, we're going to primary you." And I said, "Great, bring it on." And lost. But they're doing the same thing now after this latest round, line them up, we got all their votes on these phony amendments that we could use to say they voted against children and religion and faith and, you know, business and whatever.

And they're doing it now. And so for people who, you know, went in for — I think for the right reasons — it's more difficult to want to stay. So that's puts the pressure back on the public. And if the public wants that, if that's the way they like their politics, well, get ready for the ride.

Because I know of, you know, I'm an old guy and I've read a couple of books. I know of no time in history where anger and combativeness as a culture led to peace.

BRODIE: I wonder if maybe the difference now, and of course, you know,we all look at the past through rose-colored glasses and think, you know, the good old days were maybe better than they actually were. But I wonder if the difference now is, have you seen that like maybe politics is more —

BOWERS: Personal.

BRODIE: It's more personal maybe than policy now.

BOWERS: Yeah, yeah. And it's funny, afterwards the ads come on, you know, the guy with the frowny face on one side versus the smiling, angel-winged guy on the left side. And this guy voted with the Democrats 96% of the time. Well, frankly, it's because 96% of the time have crossed the aisle votes. You know, where do we want to vote? We, where do we want the bridge, how many miles of freeway? That's now a partisan issue?

But it is when it can be militarized, you know, how can we — the spin is more militaristic now on everything. And so I listened to, it's like, listen the old days to Pravda. They're talking about something people would say, "It's not what they're saying, it's what they, what isn't being said."

We're listening what isn't being said. That's how we get our news, and that's how you have to look at almost everything — everything. Isn't that sad that you thinking, "OK, they're from this group, and that's this partisan issue group. And so I have to, have to think, what's their spin? And then what is the truth?"

Which gets a little, you know, tiring for the regular listener.

BRODIE: So, is there a way out of this, do you think? I mean, is there a way ... the old cliche of disagree without being disagreeable or, you know, agree to disagree, that kind of thing. Like, can politics go back to that?

BOWERS: Of course. And it. And many times it, it does. All politicians, all people involved in the political sphere, aren't militaristic sword carriers. But many, it doesn't take many to color the whole pile. You know, very loud, raucous voices. Again, I said speed and volume doesn't make truth.

So. there is a way. When a country says, "We need to change direction." Hey, nothing like change, right? ... That's been spun and abused. But if I can change and you can change and that becomes a desirable outcome to more and more people, we will retrench. When we want to change and we're willing to change, we can change. And so we have to. It takes work, and it takes time. Just like it took to get here, it takes it to go the other way.

BRODIE: Is there the will to do that, do you think? Because as you've discussed, like, there are incentives to continue down the path we're on?

BOWERS: There's a lot of money in it.

BRODIE: And power, too, right?

BOWERS: And the maintenance of that is part of the effort. I want to maintain my power, I want to maintain my income. And so I will continue to drum up, you know, "Yeah, that election was stolen."

I mean, it's like, OK, and the sun comes up in the west. "I saw it come up in the west yesterday. It had to be, you know." So some won't change, but some of us have to say, you know, "I'm just tired of this." I'm gonna click off that radio and enough Nielsen ratings go down.

People change. But I think we can. Otherwise, there's no hope.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Due to an editing error, this story's headline has been updated to correct the spelling of Rusty Bowers' name.