In the self-congratulations video that Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona released to announce that she was leaving the Democratic Party and becoming an independent, she did not mention any disagreements with her previous caucus on issues. subject. Instead, she sees the move as a step toward self-actualization. “Registering as an independent and appearing to work as an independent is a reflection of the person I have always been,” she said.
It’s true: This is who she has always been. The Content Sinema’s politics have changed over time, from Green Party progressivism to pro-business centrist. Her approach to elected office as a means of self-improvement is not.
In Sinema’s 2009 book “Unity and Conquer: How to Build a Winning — and Lasting Alliance,” she describes giving up the jarring partisan regime, which made her unhappy, in exchange for a The nebulous New Age character appreciates inner tranquility. One chapter is titled “Let go of the Bear and Pick Up the Buddha,” with the bear representing fear and anger. “Welcoming the Buddha (becoming a hyper-focused political actor) makes you stronger, more effective,” she wrote. “To be your best political self, you need to learn to recognize the bear and learn to let it go in your work.”
Overcoming fear and anger is a great mental goal. But being a more central and more wonderful person is a political project only if it is directed towards goals that go beyond oneself. With Sinema, it’s unclear what those goals might be or whether they even exist. (Another chapter in her book is “Letting Go of Results.”) Announcing her new independent status, Sinema wrote a essay in the Republic of Arizona and has given interviews to outlets including Politico and CNN. Nowhere have I seen her articulate her substantive differences with the Democrats, other than her opposition to raising taxes. Instead, she talks about not fitting into a box, staying true to herself and wanting to work, as she put it. tell Politicothere is no “pressure or extreme of party structure.”
Until recently, Sinema seemed to enjoy the power the Senate divided her equally, which she used to benefit the financial and pharmaceutical industries. Negotiating the Inflation Reduction Act, She’s Alone stop Democrats from closing the real interest rate loophole, a provision that dramatically cuts the tax bill of Wall Street investors. And Sinema is determined to narrow down the part of the law that means lowering the price of prescription drugs, earn criticism even from Joe Manchin, the center-right Democrat of West Virginia with whom she frequently affiliated.
“One of her profound flaws is that she doesn’t realize that our actions have a daily impact on those who need our help,” said Ruben Gallego, an Arizona Democrat, who is considering a major campaign against Sinema, said.
For much of this year, Sinema appeared to be preparing for a future in the Senate run by Republican Mitch McConnell. In September, during a cozy appearance with McConnell in Kentucky, she said: “As you know, every few years, there are changes in control between the House and the Senate. It is likely to change again in just a few weeks.” She described McConnell as a friend, and he hailed her as “the most effective first-term senator” he had ever seen in his career.
Had the Republicans won the Senate, Sinema could have become an independent caucus with the Republican Party, maintaining his position in the majority. A red wave seems to have vindicate her belligerent centralism, especially if Senator Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat much more loyal to his party, loses. But Kelly won and the Democrats won a Senate seat. That means Sinema can no longer hold the rest of the Democratic caucus hostage, or argue that only Democrats who defy their base can be elected in the state. hers. She was about to become a lot less relevant. Now she’s the center of the stage again.
In the short term, Sinema’s move is unlikely to have major national political consequences. She declined to say directly whether she was in closed-door meetings with Democrats. Speaking to CNN’s Jake Tapper, she turned down a question about the balance of power in the Senate, saying, “It’s a concern for DC.” Her response was an insult to all Arizonans who care so much about which party controls the Senate, but it’s also a diversion. Sinema ruled out caucusing with Republicans and said she plans to continue her committee duties, which she can only do by aligning with Democrats. However, she appreciates her own uniqueness, which is not partisan in the Senate.
The true meaning of her defection will come in 2024, when she runs for re-election. If she remains a Democrat, Gallego could be a strong primary opponent. Many of Sinema’s supporters four years ago were angered by the way she obstructed popular liberal priorities, and a recent AARP poll found that only 37 percent of likely Democratic voters in Arizona had positive opinion of her.
It will be harder for Democrats to challenge her in a general election, where a tripartite race could risk Republican victory. But Gallego, who said he will decide to run for office next year, stressed that the threat of Sinema playing a saboteur role would not influence his decision. “No matter what, I’m not going to make a decision based on the false threat she’s trying to make,” he said, arguing she doesn’t have enough support “to rally a coalition that will influence the Democratic candidate.”
That might be too optimistic – Sinema wouldn’t need to attract so many wavering voters to thwart a Democrat. But he was right when she herself did not have a winning alliance. In the AARP poll, a decided majority of voters in every demographic, including independents, viewed her unfavorably. Being independent on behalf of your constituents is one thing. Independence from them is another matter.
