Kyrsten Sinema, in both her ideology and her role in negotiations regarding President Joe Biden's legislative agenda, is the centre of the political universe. According to Amanda Becker, the 19th reporter, she is still a mystery despite all the attention. Beckers' recent article stated that Kyrsten Sinema doesn't feel the need for explanations.This wasn't always true. Sinema was an independent candidate affiliated with the Green Party early in her political career. Sinema organized anti-war demonstrations, was involved in Ralph Naders campaign and wrote a tirade against capitalism. It is difficult to know what she stands for. Becker spoke to me on Thursday's What Next episode about her political evolution, her commitment towards bipartisanship and the possibility of a primary challenge in Arizona. This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementMary Harris: Sinema, in her first attempt to win the Arizona statehouse, was an independent. She said, "Heres the truth: You can't win that way." She didn't know this. So she re-registered to be a Democrat and won the next election. It was like the realization that I needed to moderate a bit.Amanda Becker: Yes. At that point it was just saying that she was a member of one of the major parties. But that evolution continued. She basically wrote about how her first year at the Arizona Statehouse was a total waste. She never got anything done. She speaks about how she made fiery floor speeches in Arizona, which was heavily Republican. However, she was totally ineffective in her own telling. After that first year, she began to self-evaluate and realized that being friends with people from the other side was the best way to win lasting political victories.AdvertisementShe loves to tell stories about her time at the state Capitol. She likes to highlight how she got to the Republicans level. You'll be able to see that many Sinemas favourite political victories weren't as they seem.AdvertisementThe one that really stands out, according to what she's written and the interviews on it, is when she was in statehouse. She was part of a coalition which defeated a ballot proposal that would have banned same-sex marriage and added it to the state constitution. Same-sex marriage was already banned in Arizona at the time. This would have prevented the addition of it to Arizona's constitution. This was eventually null and void by a Supreme Court ruling a few years later. However, she speaks about how the way they framed the issue, which was that they used older heterosexual couples living together to frame it as a domestic benefits issue, helped her to gain more conservative Republicans to her side. This upset some LGBTQ activists who believed that this should be treated as a right or wrong. Either you support the LGBTQ community's rights or not, and it shouldn't be framed in a way that makes a heterosexual couple the subject of this discussion. However, this victory was short-lived. This was eventually approved by the state in a ballot proposal.AdvertisementAdvertisementSimilar results were achieved for a second coalition she was part of to stop a ballot proposition that would have banned affirmative actions from going on the ballot. Senator Sinemas main argument for bipartisanship is that it is necessary to create lasting change and durable change. This means constituents won't swing back and forth, and law and policy will not go back and forth depending on who's in power. Two of the most prominent examples she has written about were changes that failed to last.Sinema was in hot water in March when she voted against an increase in minimum wage in the coronavirus relief program. Many people, including Democrats, voted against Sinema, but she did it with style.AdvertisementShe enters the Senate chamber to vote for the minimum wage hike. This is a common gesture used by senators to get their votes recorded. Then she curtsied and did a little dip. What you can see was her curtsying before the staff recording her vote. On her way out, she spoke to two Republicans.AdvertisementCommentators were shocked to see this.The backlash was swift. Rep. Mark Pocan (a Wisconsin Democrat) wrote on Twitter, "Just wow" linking to a previous post about her support for raising minimum wage. Rashida Tlaib (a Michigan Democrat) wrote on Twitter: No one should ever feel so happy to vote against lifting people out of poverty.AdvertisementThis is why no one should be so happy to vote against lifting people out of poverty. Senator Sinema voted no on the $15 minimum wage. https://t.co/qNfYy8co4m Rashida Tlaib, @RashidaTlaib March 6, 2021AdvertisementAdvertisementBut was it really that?No. She also received a lot of criticism in media reports for this, both in the national and local papers. Because I was already doing a profile on her at the time, I was informed by multiple people. What you didn't see was that there were nonpartisan Senate staffers right off camera. These staffers work for the Senate and not one party or one lawmaker. The bill was hundreds of pages long and they were up late reading it. As she voted, Sen. Sinema had given them a cake earlier in the day. As they thanked her for the cake, she looked at them beyond the person who was counting the votes. She then curtsied in a gesture of appreciation.AdvertisementThe most puzzling thing to me is why her office, or even she, wouldn't have said it at that time. Her office stated that it was sexist to discuss a woman's body language. [HuffPost] They said that commentaries about female senators' body language, clothing or physical appearance do not belong in serious media outlets.AdvertisementSinema doesn't feel the need for explanations. That was the title that I gave to the story about her. While I have my doubts about whether this is a wise decision for someone in politics; however, she doesn't feel the need to answer to progressives right now. She considers herself to have put together a winning coalition, which included many Republicans and crossover voters. There are a lot independent voters in Arizona. That is why she won. Five years ago, a Democrat was elected to the Arizona Senate. This was a coup politically. Things have changed, I believe, even though they were five years ago. It remains to be determined if her calculations are correct.AdvertisementIs there anyone who knows what Sinema believes? What does she believe, other than friendship across the aisle?Even though she is a deal-maker, it makes Becker a de facto obstructionist of Democratic policy.After speaking to a few people in her circle, about a dozen, including some who are very close friends to her today, I was told that she hasn't changed her core beliefs and that they haven't changed much.AdvertisementShe still wants capitalism to be destroyed. [Laughs]I don't think it goes that far, you know. They seem to be more interested in her later statehouse days than the Green Party, antiwar activist Ralph Nader days. She believes strongly in food security and other issues. She is a strong supporter of the military. Her family includes members who served in the military. She strongly believes in voting rights. A few people told me that she would likely change her mind about the filibuster if she realized or came to the conclusion that Republicans would not allow any legislation to protect the right to vote. That might be what would make her reconsider the filibuster.AdvertisementH.R. H.R.It worked. However, she was a co-sponsor and voted for it.However, that was not enough.Evidently not. She just wrote an opinion-ed right before the vote to protect the filibuster. Those closest to her say that she doesn't seem to have changed her core beliefs about anything. She feels like she was elected to represent moderate-to-conservative voters. It is not clear if this will continue to be the same group of voters she works with in the future.AdvertisementYes. Is this still true? It makes me wonder if Sinema really is doing what her voters want.AdvertisementTalking to Arizona voters who are liberal-leaning, I was thrilled to see that they had elected the first Democrat to a Senate Seat in a while. She worked hard for her. I was told by more than one person that she doesn't return calls. Many progressive groups won't allow her to meet with her. She is meeting with many industry groups as well as conservative or moderate-leaning organizations. They told me that they weren't going to invest the same amount of human power in her next campaign. They believe there might be a viable primary challenger to her defeat. While Sen. Sinema may not view these people as those who gave her the victory, they were definitely the ones making phone calls and dropping lit drops at doors. They tell me they aren't willing to do it again. If she is faced with a challenge by someone well-known in the state, I believe she could have a very rough primary in 2024.AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementKyrsten Sinema is a deal-maker. Are you more inclined to see her as an obstructionist or a deal-maker?She may be basing her view on an old political climate and dynamic that has changed. This is her first year as a member in Kyrsten Sinemas's political career. Her party had previously controlled the House when she was in Congress, but Republicans held the Senate and the White House so it didn't really matter. In the statehouse, Republicans were usually in control with a supermajority. In that context, her willingness to work with all parties made her a deal-maker. Her party views her as an obstructionist in trying to get important pieces of legislation passed. This could be because she hasn't announced that she's on board with a piece of legislation such as a labor bill or because she is one the most vocal opponents of the Democratic side changing the filibuster.Right now, the Republican Kyrsten Sinema would be the deal-maker. She is de facto an obstructionist of the Democratic agenda because she has not assumed the role of deal-maker.Kyrsten Sinema was unable to enter politics without the Democratic Party. They were the only way she could get elected, and she stated it herself. Now she's in a funny position where the larger party needs to have her. But she seems to be resisting. It's funny to me.Perhaps it isn't a flip. Maybe she doesn't feel that way, but at the end she answers to the Democratic Party. It was not her first choice to be a Democrat. However, it has not been a central point of discussion since then, as Democrats have not been in power.Subscribe to the What Next Apple PodcastsEvery weekday, Mary Harris brings you more news.
