It’s no better than Joe Manchin’s.
Back in April, West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin defended the filibuster in a Washington Post op-ed that mostly displaced wishful thinking and a lack of historical understanding. Today, the paper let Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema give it a whirl in an op-ed arguing “ We have more to lose than gain by ending the filibuster.” Her opener is not strong: Everyday Arizonans are focused on questions that matter most in their daily lives. Is my job secure? Can I expand my business? Can we afford college? What about health care? When can I retire? Is my community safe? Meanwhile, much of Washington’s focus is on a Senate rule requiring 60 votes to advance most legislation. So, what if the reason much of Washington is focused on this Senate rule is that it’s stopping the passage of legislation addressing the issues that matter most in the daily lives of Americans, including those from Arizona? Arizonans expect me to do what I promised when I ran for the House and the Senate: to be independent — like Arizona — and to work with anyone to achieve lasting results. Lasting results — rather than temporary victories, destined to be reversed, undermining the certainty that America’s families and employers depend on. So, the way democracy is supposed to work is that the people elect representatives to make laws. If those laws are popular, they re-elect said representatives to keep making laws. If those laws are not popular, they elect new representatives to repeal the unpopular laws and pass different ones. And so on and so forth. The best way to achieve durable, lasting results? Bipartisan cooperation. But what if one of the two parties systematically refuses to compromise? What if their entire legislative agenda in the last eight-and-a-half years of opposition-party Presidents, going back to 2009, is the provide zero votes for legislation that’s even slightly controversial? What if they won’t vote even for programs popular with their own constituents if the other party gets the credit? I understand bipartisanship seems outdated to many pundits. But the difficult work of collaboration is what we expect in Arizona. And I still believe it is the best way to identify realistic solutions — instead of escalating all-or-nothing political battles that result in no action, or in whipsawing federal policy reversals. So, very few pundits are opposed to bipartisanship. Indeed, a fetish for bipartisanship would fairly characterize more national-level pundits.
