Why America Will Miss Kyrsten Sinema, and I Will Too
“I’m not a joiner,” says Sinema. “It’s not my thing.”

“I’m not a joiner,” says Kyrsten Sinema. “It’s not my thing.”
These eight words stuck out to me when I read the an interview Kyrsten Sinema did with The Atlantic a while ago.
Sinema, the ranking US Senator from Arizona, famously left the Democratic Party in 2022, causing a bit of a stir. And just two weeks ago she announced she was retiring from the Senate.
There are no doubt many reasons Sinema, whose political career began as a progressive activist, abandoned Democrats and registered as an Independent, essentially torpedoing her own political career.
But I think these words are at the heart of it. She was not just going to do what she was told. She’s going to do what she thinks is best.
Some may ask: best for whom? That’s a fair question, but those who think Sinema’s move was simply self serving, that her decision stemmed from pure selfishness, should consider that she never would have been in jeopardy of losing her Senate seat at all if she had simply closed her mouth, gotten in line, and went along with the party.
She could have been like AOC, “the outsider” who is slowly morphing into the next Nancy Pelosi. But I get the sense this is not really Sinema’s style, and I respect her for that. She forged a different path, and I think she did it—I hesitate to even say this because I’m a cold-hearted cynic when it comes to DC politics—largely on principle. She couldn’t go in good faith where the left-wing of the Democratic Party was going. (Rep. Thomas Massie is doing the same thing now on the Republican side, and may end up paying a similar price.)
Sinema said no to court packing. She said no to nuking the filibuster. She said no to other big spending bills that the United States, currently $31 trillion in debt, cannot afford.
And she paid for it. Think about these words on Sinema from The Atlantic.
“…it’s hard not to think about the protesters who have hounded her in recent years. They chase her through airports, yell at her at weddings. In one controversial episode, a group of student protesters at Arizona State University followed her into the bathroom, continuing to film as they hectored her. (The ASU police recommended misdemeanor charges against four students involved.)
I ask Sinema if, as a former activist herself, she could understand where those students were coming from. Would she have done the same thing when she was young?
“Break the law?” she scoffs. “No.”
Imagine being hounded by protesters like this, to the extent they are following you into the bathroom.
Again, Sinema didn’t have to endure these things. She could have been like AOC and toed the party line and gotten fawning press over it and softball interviews on MSNBC with f̶o̶r̶m̶e̶r̶ White House officials.
But protecting these checks on centralized power was the right thing to do, and both parties once agreed on this. In 2005, for example, Barack Obama gave an impassioned defense of the filibuster when there was chatter about Republicans scrapping it for partisan advantage.
The American people sent us here to be their voice. They understand that those voices can at times become loud and argumentative, but they also hope that we can disagree without being disagreeable. And at the end of the day, they expect both parties to work together to get the people's business done.
What they don't expect is for one party - be it Republican or Democrat - to change the rules in the middle of the game so that they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster - if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate - then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.
I understand that Republicans are getting a lot of pressure to do this from factions outside the chamber. But we need to rise above an "ends justify the means" mentality because we're here to answer to the people - all of the people - not just the ones wearing our party label.
This was the right response to Republicans in 2005, who wanted to ditch the filibuster for partisan advantage, and it was the right response to Democrats in 2021 who sought to do the same. Every time one party gets the upper hand, we go through this. Activists and power-hungry people in Washington want to abandon important, age-old checks on power—which is why these checks are eroding.
Those checks will soon be gone completely if we continue to lose people like Kyrsten Sinema. People who won’t do as they are told. People who decide they’re “not joiners.” People who understand that the US system was designed to frustrate the concentration of power, not consolidate it.
To preserve this system, which I’m not even sure is possible anymore, we’ll need need more Kyrsten Sinemas and fewer AOCs.
Unfortunately, on both sides of the aisle, I see a lot more AOCs.
Sinema is a very interesting character. The New York Times Magazine is usually a bore but it had a fascinating article on her some months ago. I’m not quite sure sure what to make of her. But I have, at least, a qualified, admiration for her.
AOC is a true disruptor in the corridors of power. It’s just that she’s better at public relations. Kirsten has no such ambitions. She’s The Rebel and a reformer.