What was missing from Sinema's speech to the McConnell Center

The political left going nuts over the exchange of compliments between her and McConnell illuminates the real problem.

Recently, Democrat Kyrsten Sinema was the speaker for a lecture series sponsored by the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville. The center is named for, and supported by, Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the U.S. Senate.

In the course of introducing Sinema, McConnell said some nice things about her. She, in turn, said some nice things about McConnell in her remarks.

The political left went nuts, denouncing Sinema and renewing threats to take her out in a Democratic primary. Congressman Ruben Gallego, who is pawing the ground to be that candidate, sent out a taunting tweet. 

Although McConnell is a hard-bitten partisan, this lecture series has been quite ecumenical. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden were predecessors to Sinema’s stint at the lectern. I’ve not reviewed the events, but I would take a large bet and give generous odds that McConnell said something nice about Clinton and Biden and they, in turn, said something nice about McConnell. That’s just in the nature of these kinds of things.

So, there’s more than a bit of selective outrage in the reaction to Sinema’s appearance in the series and the exchange of compliments between her and McConnell. But that underscores the missing element in Sinema’s speech at the event.

Sinema’s topic was: “The Future of Political Discourse and the Importance of Bipartisanship.” Her basic point was that bipartisan governance is better because it is more stable and sustainable. And that political discourse should remain civil enough to facilitate bipartisan governance.

This, of course, has been her political calling card. She has walked the walk in the U.S. Senate in the face of intense political heat and pressure, evidenced by the overwrought reaction to her speech and the unceasing threats to primary her.

The media attention was on Sinema’s continued commitment to the filibuster expressed mostly during a Q & A session after the speech, during which Sinema’s refreshing and engaging personality, largely suppressed in public since she became a candidate for the Senate, emerged for a few glimpses. She not only recommitted to not diluting the filibuster any further, but actually expressed support for restoring it where it has been jettisoned, for judges and executive branch appointments. 

In Sinema’s telling, the filibuster forces the Senate into bipartisan governance, which also restrains partisan governance emanating from the House. It’s the same argument Jon Kyl, the political figure I most admire and respect, makes. As did John McCain.

Sinema has some successes that make her point, most notably her infrastructure bill. But, in general, I find the argument unpersuasive. Indeed, I think the filibuster mostly has the opposite effect, reinforcing partisan divisions rather than bridging them.

I oppose the filibuster principally because it violates the intended constitutional order. The Constitution specifies where extraordinary legislative majorities are required, such as impeachment conviction, approving treaties, or referring constitutional amendments to the states. By inference, everything else, particularly ordinary legislation, was supposed to be done through a simple majority.  

If the filibuster were abolished, the Senate would not become just like the House, as both Sinema and McConnell would have it. Senators would still have six-year terms, there would still be two senators for each state, debate and amendment opportunities would still be considerably greater in the Senate than in the House. 

The primary practical effect of the filibuster, in my observation, has been to increase solidarity in the minority. If the minority sticks together, it can defeat the majority, which creates pressure not to break ranks and make a bipartisan deal. That, in turn, creates pressure on the majority to stick together in evasive schemes, such as the gross misuse of the budget reconciliation process, which avoids the filibuster, by both parties when in charge.

While the filibuster occasionally midwifes bipartisan governance, that hardly characterizes the Senate as an institution in modern times. Rank and runaway partisanship more accurately describes the joint. 

Which brings us to the missing element in Sinema’s speech. The reason there is not more civility and bipartisan governance in the Senate is because the electoral system isn’t conducive to electing people who are inclined toward it. Instead, those who prefer demonizing opponents and sticking it to them while legislating have the inside track.

Sinema is Exhibit A in Arizona. In a general election, Sinema would crush Gallego. Given a binary choice, she would vastly be preferred by the overall electorate.

Yet, in a Democratic primary election, decided by less than 15% of the overall electorate, Gallego would have a realistic chance of prevailing. And if Republican primary voters fielded a Blake Masters, rather than a Jon Kyl or a John McCain, Gallego would have a realistic chance of finding himself sitting in the U.S. Senate.

For most of our history, the two-party system has served the country well. It is certainly preferable to the multiparty systems that produce highly unstable governance in other democracies.

But now, the partisan primary nominating process is the chief obstacle to sound and stable governance. That, and not the filibuster or blandishments to those elected under the current system for better behavior, needs to be the focus for those wanting a healthier and more productive politics.

Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.