Kyrsten Sinema’s announcement on December 9 that she would be leaving the Democratic Party to register as an Independent is the latest event in a years-long pattern of her prioritizing the approval of conservatives over the good of the people she claims to champion.
Sinema joined the world of politics in 2000 working on Ralph Nader’s presidential campaign. She ran for local political offices in 2001 and 2002, and a letter of hers railing against capitalism in an impressively succinct and impactful way was published by the Arizona Republic in 2002. In 2003, she even criticized presidential candidate Joe Lieberman for “want(ing) to get Republicans voting for him–What kind of strategy is that?” She organized anti-war rallies and fought to repeal the death penalty. She was a leftist’s role model and a conservative’s nightmare.
In 2004, likely because of her bad luck getting elected in previous years, Sinema joined the Arizona Democratic Party and was elected to the Arizona House of Representatives that same year. She came out as bisexual almost casually while criticizing a Republican colleague’s queerphobia in 2005 and, in 2006 proudly declared herself “the most liberal member of the Arizona State Legislature.” She fought for same-gender marriage rights in Arizona, supported the DREAM Act, and helped shape the Affordable Care Act.
It was when she was elected to the U.S. Congress in 2013 that Sinema’s politics began to shift to the center. Though her opponents had dubbed her an “anti-American Hippie” during her campaign–a familiar accusation for leftists–while in office, she became a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, the most conservative Democratic caucus, and the Problem Solver’s Caucus, a bipartisan caucus that espouses Centrism for the sake of “getting things done.”
This is a common critique of Centrism in general, the idea that someone must compromise with their opponents to accomplish their goals. On paper, this sounds like a reasonable idea, but when–as is the case for Centrism as an ideology–one’s primary motivation is compromise rather than a policy, they will achieve the latter goal every time.
Over the past five years she has been in the Senate, Sinema has repeatedly disappointed and angered the people she is supposed to represent. In 2018, her election campaign was accused of “keeping the media at arms-length and avoiding controversial issues” by the New York Times. She voted to confirm William Barr, noted Trump supporter and election conspiracist, as Attorney General. She also did not cast a vote for the formation of the January 6 Committee, citing a personal family matter as the reason for her absence.
The move that placed Sinema in the hottest water, though, was her decision earlier this year not to end the Senate filibuster and even insisting it should be restored. This got her censured by the Arizona Democratic Party and was a major reason that five members of her advisory council resigned in October.
Kyrsten Sinema’s recent actions are not only a betrayal of her constituents, but of her younger self. She has placed her own political career over her values time and time again. It’s time that she looks back on her own words and asks, “Why does she want to get Republicans voting for her? What kind of strategy is that?”
