I spoke to Senator Sinema on the phone last week, and I was the worst conversation I've ever had with an elected official. I went in thinking she was just a contrarian who likes being the center of attention. But it's worse than that: she actually believes she is protecting democracy by preserving the filibuster. (She also launched into a full lecture on the history of the filibuster, and when I said that everyone on the call was familiar with the history and did not think it supported its continuation, she replied, "Well, sorry if this is boring to you.")
I don't really doubt that Manchin will get where he needs to be on this, but I have no idea how we move her at this point.
There is something very frustrating in how we talk about the need to “abolish” the filibuster, which implicitly tasks Senators with changing an institutional rule (albeit a rule that has outlived a mythical purpose it never had) and therefore implies Senators lack agency, as opposed to asking Senators whether they would adopt a rule that that the minority party will have a veto over any legislation the majority party passes. The latter formulation acknowledges that Senators, indeed, have agency here.
No Senate, or any legislative body, elected by a unique set of voters and facing a unique set of challenges and issues, should necessarily be bound by rules set by an earlier body, elected by different voters and facing a different set of challenges. And no legislative body should be able to bind how a subsequent legislative body enacts legislation.
I do wish journalists asked questions that were more pointed, and more specifically held her to account. So many of the questions seem designed to grab a rage-inducing headline rather than nail her down on the specific ramifications of her position. Rather than "Will you vote to kill the filibuster?", I'd rather see something like:
"You're here today with John Cornyn, who propogated The Big Lie of election fraud, a lie so preposterous that it got Trump banned from even Facebook. Members of his party have pretended that the 2020 election was not secure, as a cover for advancing voter suppression laws. What specific evidence do you have that ten Republican senators will reverse course and ensure the right to vote for all eligible Americans?"
"What about working with supporters of The Big Lie makes it more important than the passage of a bill you co-sponsored?"
"Can you point me to the specific place in the Constitution that the founders wrote in the filibuster?"
"Our republic barely survived the Articles of Confederation, a key feature of which was a super-majority requirement. By my reading, there is no super-majority requirement in the Constitution, which--if I may--suggests the founders saw the dangers of it. Since the filibuster as it exists today essentially requires a super-majority on most legislation, why do you view it as more conducive to democracy than the founders did? What are your other favorite features of the Articles of Confederation that the Constitution writers left out?"
Confession: I, too, saw the clip yesterday with Cornyn, and was irate.
Originally I was hopeful that once Manchin came around with some type of work-around, surely Sinema would too. Now I'm worried that she might delight in being the sole disrupter. I wish we could trade in Sinema for Murkowski. At least she has some principles.
Excellent column with one minor point: the United States Supreme Court held a while back that state recall laws generally cannot apply to federal officials . . . so, yeah, the way to hold Senator Sinema accountable for her votes in '24 will be a Democratic primary.
Off topic but something that bothers me. There is frequent talk re: rising violence and it's causes. I am no expert in this area, but it seems common sense that once the pandemic frees everyone up, there will be more interactions resulting in violence because there are more interactions PERIOD.... I never hear this mentioned as a possible factor but surely it is a contributing factor?
It’s a hopeless feeling, watching democracy erode after all that work in 2020 because Kyrsten Sinema is intent on constructing a stupid self-image. I’m not sure anyone can pierce through her arrogance. She’s more obsessed with the idea of being an "Arizona maverick” than the substance of the given situation. I wish she could see the difference between a dramatic No vote on ripping healthcare away from tens of millions of Americans vs. a theatrical No vote on raising the minimum wage to livable standards. But she only sees the performative gesture of each act.
Joe Manchin is delusional with respect to his hope for bipartisanship. (Either that or he’s just BSing us to escape taking action.) But at least his stance, out of touch or disingenuous as it is, is grounded in logic. I also appreciate that he’s the only Dem who could win WV, so we give him a bit more latitude on political grounds. But at some point placing your own career above doing the right thing for the country you serve is inexcusable. We’re at that point. Still, at least his resistance to abolishing the minority-rule loophole can be explained in some form. The same cannot be said for Sinema, who is a colossal disappointment (I'd prefer 2020-21 Jeff Flake.)
As Michelle Goldberg wrote today, Sinema “seems above all dedicated to a view of herself as a quirky maverick, and delights in trolling the Democrats who elected her.”
Dan, I’m legit worried that Sinema and/or Manchin might change parties like Arlen Specter did. I can see them blaming the AOC and Bernie wing of the Democratic Party as being too far left, so they they leave and give McConnell a majority.
I'm as confused as ever about Sinema after this piece.
The nub of this is that Sinema is, if she wishes to be taken as a good faith actor, entitled to support the filibuster as a protection against many things during those times when Republicans control everything. But she is not doing this and there is no obvious reason why.
Mark Kelly will face the voters earlier and in a mid-term election - so we have to assume that she's not doing this because polling tells her she has to. Manchin has to be seen to be different from the party in order to survive. Absolutely not the case in Arizona.
Lieberman was a man who had become radically more conservative over the years and had his head turned by a GOP friend. Again, no explanation for Sinema's actions.
So what we are seeing appears to be both bad faith arguments and bad personal politics.
Having gone from being a Green to a liberal Democrat to a relatively-conservative Democrat is she just addicted to change?
I spoke to Senator Sinema on the phone last week, and I was the worst conversation I've ever had with an elected official. I went in thinking she was just a contrarian who likes being the center of attention. But it's worse than that: she actually believes she is protecting democracy by preserving the filibuster. (She also launched into a full lecture on the history of the filibuster, and when I said that everyone on the call was familiar with the history and did not think it supported its continuation, she replied, "Well, sorry if this is boring to you.")
I don't really doubt that Manchin will get where he needs to be on this, but I have no idea how we move her at this point.
There is something very frustrating in how we talk about the need to “abolish” the filibuster, which implicitly tasks Senators with changing an institutional rule (albeit a rule that has outlived a mythical purpose it never had) and therefore implies Senators lack agency, as opposed to asking Senators whether they would adopt a rule that that the minority party will have a veto over any legislation the majority party passes. The latter formulation acknowledges that Senators, indeed, have agency here.
No Senate, or any legislative body, elected by a unique set of voters and facing a unique set of challenges and issues, should necessarily be bound by rules set by an earlier body, elected by different voters and facing a different set of challenges. And no legislative body should be able to bind how a subsequent legislative body enacts legislation.
I do wish journalists asked questions that were more pointed, and more specifically held her to account. So many of the questions seem designed to grab a rage-inducing headline rather than nail her down on the specific ramifications of her position. Rather than "Will you vote to kill the filibuster?", I'd rather see something like:
"You're here today with John Cornyn, who propogated The Big Lie of election fraud, a lie so preposterous that it got Trump banned from even Facebook. Members of his party have pretended that the 2020 election was not secure, as a cover for advancing voter suppression laws. What specific evidence do you have that ten Republican senators will reverse course and ensure the right to vote for all eligible Americans?"
"What about working with supporters of The Big Lie makes it more important than the passage of a bill you co-sponsored?"
"Can you point me to the specific place in the Constitution that the founders wrote in the filibuster?"
"Our republic barely survived the Articles of Confederation, a key feature of which was a super-majority requirement. By my reading, there is no super-majority requirement in the Constitution, which--if I may--suggests the founders saw the dangers of it. Since the filibuster as it exists today essentially requires a super-majority on most legislation, why do you view it as more conducive to democracy than the founders did? What are your other favorite features of the Articles of Confederation that the Constitution writers left out?"
Confession: I, too, saw the clip yesterday with Cornyn, and was irate.
EW. Joe Lieberman.
Originally I was hopeful that once Manchin came around with some type of work-around, surely Sinema would too. Now I'm worried that she might delight in being the sole disrupter. I wish we could trade in Sinema for Murkowski. At least she has some principles.
Excellent column with one minor point: the United States Supreme Court held a while back that state recall laws generally cannot apply to federal officials . . . so, yeah, the way to hold Senator Sinema accountable for her votes in '24 will be a Democratic primary.
Do you think Manchin is begging R's to save the filibuster by asking for another vote on January 6 commission?
Off topic but something that bothers me. There is frequent talk re: rising violence and it's causes. I am no expert in this area, but it seems common sense that once the pandemic frees everyone up, there will be more interactions resulting in violence because there are more interactions PERIOD.... I never hear this mentioned as a possible factor but surely it is a contributing factor?
Thanks for articulating this crisis so well.
It’s a hopeless feeling, watching democracy erode after all that work in 2020 because Kyrsten Sinema is intent on constructing a stupid self-image. I’m not sure anyone can pierce through her arrogance. She’s more obsessed with the idea of being an "Arizona maverick” than the substance of the given situation. I wish she could see the difference between a dramatic No vote on ripping healthcare away from tens of millions of Americans vs. a theatrical No vote on raising the minimum wage to livable standards. But she only sees the performative gesture of each act.
Joe Manchin is delusional with respect to his hope for bipartisanship. (Either that or he’s just BSing us to escape taking action.) But at least his stance, out of touch or disingenuous as it is, is grounded in logic. I also appreciate that he’s the only Dem who could win WV, so we give him a bit more latitude on political grounds. But at some point placing your own career above doing the right thing for the country you serve is inexcusable. We’re at that point. Still, at least his resistance to abolishing the minority-rule loophole can be explained in some form. The same cannot be said for Sinema, who is a colossal disappointment (I'd prefer 2020-21 Jeff Flake.)
As Michelle Goldberg wrote today, Sinema “seems above all dedicated to a view of herself as a quirky maverick, and delights in trolling the Democrats who elected her.”
Dan, I’m legit worried that Sinema and/or Manchin might change parties like Arlen Specter did. I can see them blaming the AOC and Bernie wing of the Democratic Party as being too far left, so they they leave and give McConnell a majority.
Do you think that’s a realistic possibility?
I'm as confused as ever about Sinema after this piece.
The nub of this is that Sinema is, if she wishes to be taken as a good faith actor, entitled to support the filibuster as a protection against many things during those times when Republicans control everything. But she is not doing this and there is no obvious reason why.
Mark Kelly will face the voters earlier and in a mid-term election - so we have to assume that she's not doing this because polling tells her she has to. Manchin has to be seen to be different from the party in order to survive. Absolutely not the case in Arizona.
Lieberman was a man who had become radically more conservative over the years and had his head turned by a GOP friend. Again, no explanation for Sinema's actions.
So what we are seeing appears to be both bad faith arguments and bad personal politics.
Having gone from being a Green to a liberal Democrat to a relatively-conservative Democrat is she just addicted to change?