Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) during a rare public appearance on Sept. 26 lectured on the importance of bipartisanship and decried efforts to elevate “radical” politics through attacks on the Senate.
Sinema, traditionally tight-lipped about politics, delivered remarks during a lecture at the University of Louisville’s McConnell Center. Sinema was invited to the event by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
“In today’s partisan Washington, it might shock someone that a Democratic Senator would consider the Republican leader of the Senate, her friend,” Sinema said in opening, thanking McConnell for the invitation to the discussion of bipartisanship, before turning to the thrust of her lecture.
“Back home in Arizona, we don’t view life through a partisan lens,” said the senior senator from Arizona who replaced the late John McCain after his 2018 death. “Arizonans understand that while we may not agree on every issue, we do share the same values. We value grit, perseverance, and cooperation. Arizonans expect their political leaders to work together regardless of party politics, to make progress and then move out of the way so that everyday people can build better lives for themselves and for their families.”
This nonpartisan view, Sinema opined, is far more reflective of the general American spirit than the sensationalistic media would suggest.
“Americans from communities across our country are far more united than today’s politics would lead us to believe,” Sinema said. “From my experience, everyday Americans don’t immediately retreat to their partisan corners in their day to day lives.
“In fact, most of us believe that those partisan labels needlessly divide us. Most Americans understand that we’re all working towards the same goal: to create progress, build more positive communities, work hard, and achieve the American dreams.”
“More and more, it seems like Americans are being told that, in order to be a member of either political party, you must adhere to a strict set list of policy viewpoints,” Sinema continued. “But I don’t think that’s how a majority of Arizonans or Kentuckians or everyday Americans think, you know. We use our own judgment or our own lived experiences to form our honestly held beliefs. And we just don’t have the time or the energy to think about politics every waking moment.
“I promised Arizonans something different—I promised I'd be an independent voice for our whole state, not just those who shared my party identification, and that I would work with anyone to deliver lasting results,” the Democrat said.
Sinema has long been famous among Republicans and infamous among Democrats for her moderate outlook on politics. Generally, she is considered the second most conservative Democrat in the Senate, falling just behind her sometimes-ally Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.).
Filibuster Support
During the lecture, Sinema defended her support for the filibuster, which has increasingly won the ire of Democrats whose policy goals have been stopped by the rule that requires three-fifths of the vote instead of a simple majority—which Democrats currently hold.The calls to dismantle the filibuster first began in earnest during the summer of 2021, when Democrats were pushing to pass a series of election law reform bills that were being blocked one after the other by Republican filibuster.
Standing true to a promise he made just after the 2020 election, Manchin announced his opposition to a filibuster carve-out; he was joined in this opposition by Sinema, who has faced increasing exasperation from the left wing of her party for the position.
Since then, Sinema made clear her position has not been altered.
“You know, over the last year, much has been discussed about the Senate 60-vote threshold. And there’s been a lot of talk about my continued support of it,” she said.
Explaining her opposition to a filibuster carve-out, Sinema argued, “American politics are cyclical, and the granting of power in Washington D.C. is exchanged regularly by the voters from one party to another. The shift of power back and forth, means that the Senate’s 60-vote threshold has proved maddening to members of both political parties, as we have seen in recent years—viewed either as a weapon of obstruction, or a safety net, to save the country from radical policies depending on whether you serve in the majority or the minority at the moment.”
But the filibuster, Sinema said, is an important safeguard of the American public against the otherwise unchallenged whims of the majority party.
“What is the legislative filibuster, other than a tool that requires that new federal policy to be broadly supported by Senators representing a broader cross section of Americans, a guardrail ensuring that the millions of Americans not represented by the majority party in the moment have a voice in the process,” Sinema continued. “Demands to eliminate this threshold by both political parties amount to a group of people separated on two sides of a canyon shouting to their colleagues, that the solution to their shared challenges is to make that rift both wider and deeper.”
Sinema continued: “The steady escalation of tit for tat, the weakening of our guardrails, and the exclusion of input from the other party furthers the resentment and anger amongst elected leaders and our constituents at home. The truth is the majority of Arizonans and Kentuckians and Americans, they don’t belong to either polarizing ends of the ideological spectrum. But rather, like me, they fit in somewhere in the middle.”
Sinema unsurprisingly was asked to expand her remarks about the issue during the Q & A section of the lecture.
Sinema argued in answer that the importance of the 60-vote filibuster threshold is to counter the House, where needed. Sinema defended this answer by positing that the House was intended to be the passionate part of the legislative process, whereas the Senate was meant to be the more deliberative body in the Framers’ formulation.
“The danger of eliminating the 60-vote threshold is that the Senate becomes the House,” Sinema said.
“The reality is that if you were to eliminate the 60 vote threshold in the Senate, the Senate would become like the House—smaller, older, but basically like the house. And the trouble with that is that the House with elections every two years ... they really represent the passions of the moment in the political spectrum.
“So as you all know, control changes between the House in the Senate every couple of years, it’s likely to change again, in just a few weeks, right,” Sinema added in an offhand remark suggesting that she thinks, as do most observers, that Republicans are poised to take the House. “And so, when the House passes legislation, it represents that kind of [rapid] shifting.
“So, the House passes legislation that represents the passions of the moment, and that’s what it was designed to do when our forefathers created the house,” Sinema said. “They wanted a body that represented the passions of Americans at the moment, but they tend to be a little bit over eager.
“So when Republicans are in control, they pass a little bit of crazy legislation. And when the Democrats are in control, they pass a little bit of crazy legislation. And the job of the Senate is to cool that passion.
“You know, there’s the saying that the House is the cup of hot tea, and the Senate is the saucer in which you cool that tea.
“The Senate was designed to be a place that moves slowly, to cool down those passions, to think more strategically and long term about the legislation before us. And most importantly, it was designed to require comity, to require people to compromise and work together, so the legislation we pass represents the viewpoints of a broad spectrum of the country, not just the passion of the moment.
Infrastructure
A key piece of Sinema’s lecture touched on the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, a $1.2 trillion bill that capped off years of failed efforts to pass infrastructure legislation. The bill ultimately won the support of enough members in both chambers to pass into law.Ultimately, Sinema played a key role in ensuring that the bill would be able to pass, and unsurprisingly, the Arizona Democrats devoted a great deal of time to discuss the legislation.
“That approach has proved successful, helping us pass our historic Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act into law, making America stronger and safer, creating good paying jobs, and expanding economic opportunities across the country,” Sinema said of the bill that she was instrumental in putting together.
“You know, for decades, American infrastructure has been crumbling. And despite the fact that it was infrastructure week, week after week, progress was continuously blocked by partisanship. But our law makes a once in a generation investment in America’s economy, including over $100 billion to repair and upgrade our highways, our roadways, our bridges, and other major transportation projects. Our law is providing faster internet for people in more places, by investing over $65 billion to deploy high speed broadband and help families afford internet service. It’s resulting in cleaner, more reliable water sources by making the strongest investment in drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in U.S. history.
Gun Control
Sinema also discussed a controversial gun control package she worked out with Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) in the wake of the Uvalde, Texas, shooting that left 19 children and two adults dead.Though the package was poorly-received among Second Amendment advocates, who in particular raised alarms over its incentivizing and expanding red flag laws, Sinema insisted that the package was a bipartisan achievement that addressed issues while leaving law-abiding Americans’ gun rights intact.
Sinema argued that the true problem was that lawmakers would only consider explanations for mass shootings that “align[ed] with and confirm[ed] their own preconceived beliefs.
This, Sinema argued, is a mistake.
“Elected officials make a habit of insulting one another; for offering thoughts and prayers, for blaming violence only on mental illness or video games, for particular kinds of weapons or any cause that didn’t align with and confirm their own preconceived beliefs,” Sinema said. “But casting blame and trading political barbs and attacks became the path of least resistance.
“Meanwhile, communities across our country who experienced senseless violence, like Uvalde, Texas, deserved better than Washington politics as usual. Our communities deserved a commitment from their leaders to do the necessary but very hard work of putting aside the politics, identifying problems that needed to be solved, and working together towards common ground and common goals. That’s why after the horrific tragedy at Rob Elementary, in Uvalde, Texas, Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), John Cornyn, Tom Tillis (R-N.C.), and myself—all representing diverse states from across the country—got to work debating a range of solutions that would save lives, make our communities safer, and protect Americans constitutional rights.”
“We acknowledged that the root of violence plaguing our communities is complex,” Sinema said. “It can be partly attributed to criminals with dangerous weapons, and attributed to a mental health crisis affecting young people in cities and towns all across America. So we spent hours considering the policy provisions, ensuring we got the language just right, and that every policy including our bill could help save lives, and help children learn and grow in healthy and safe environments and make our communities safer, more vibrant places. It was hard work. But it was worth it.”
These two bills, Sinema said, were among a series of bipartisan achievements during the 117th Congress.
