The thing that’s important to understand about interviews like this is that you don’t actually have to take them at face value. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a softball, or whether you think Sinema is a loon or corrupt or whatever.
What matters is that it gives us a window into the story she tells herself. Every person thinks they’re the hero of their own story, and that goes double for politicians. Hearing that story direct from the horse’s mouth can tell you a lot.
FWIW, the Atlantic is only $70/year. Just one man's opinion, but it's become totally worth the price of subscription if you can make room to afford it.
It reminds me of Slate in the good old days before Trump drove them crazy, though significantly more mature and sober than Slate ever was. Measured left-of-center opinion, well-thought-out, generally avoids glibness or telling you crap you already know. Just ignore the one writer who keeps bitching about Long COVID, and you'll be mostly OK.
I mean, she says it all right there in the interview. She thinks that she gets shit done by being a bipartisan, she doesn't see the point in preening for the media the way her colleagues do, and she prefers a values-based political approach over the traditional ideological approach -- IE, she doesn't identify as a progressive or liberal ideologue and let that define her positions, but instead has a set of values that she tries to pick positions which maximize.
As far as whether it's "close to... political reality", I think it's mostly internally coherent, for whatever that's worth. Not to shit on your question -- it's a valuable question -- but I think when we're talking about her story, we're essentially talking about a narrative, so it's more appropriate to engage her narrative within the context of past discussions we've had here (IE in this forum) on narrative.
That is to say, one of my guiding principles for many years now has been that "Narrative Creates Its Own Reality". In invoking that here, I'd say that Sinema's personal narrative deeply shapes her perception of her own reality, much more so than for most politicians. Despite her public image as a kooky, aloof dingbat, she clearly has a stronger self-conception than, say, Lindsay Graham, which gives her the confidence to trust her own judgment rather than constantly capitulate to outside pressures like he does. OTOH, her chief problem is that, because of her distaste for traditional communications strategies, she has a very hard time relating her narrative to her constituents -- especially in an environment where an entire world of media (Fox News and otherwise) is pushing its own counternarratives to hers. She has to swim upstream against all of the currents, while colleagues like Graham just go with the flow.
Her weakest point is that she doesn't really acknowledge the PR fuckups in the interview, even when directly challenged about them. It's one thing to eschew traditional communications, but you have to replace it with something else if you want to remain effective. She... doesn't. And so, when she *does* fuck up, like when she couldn't elucidate a coherent position on Build Back Better, she blames everyone else or insists it's just part of her process. It makes her look like an idiot and a dilettante, even if she isn't one. And it creates a vicious cycle where she -- as someone who prides herself on not being an idiot -- argues all the more vehemently against charges of idiocy.
So I am all for having moderate, and/or bipartisan viewpoints in congress. I honestly dream of a day when congress isn't divided into ideological silos with very little policy variety. All that is to say if Sinema has good (at least logical) reasons for her opinions then im here for it. From what ive seen of her she revels in her internal view as an 'outsider' doing things her own way. But to what ends? what sort of country does she want? it feels like she wants to play against the way things are done and be different...but doesnt have a unique idea. Its like the opposite of many conservatives in congress, instead of just being against everything put out by the Dems, shes just out there floating around. She (and by lesser extent Manchin) could have the potential to really effect change, but it seems like she is just willing to be aloof and blow shit up every so often. Her lack of ideological fealty to the Democratic line wouldnt bother me as much if she espoused her own set of beliefs on the issues of the day.
All this is to say i respect the middle road she wants to take.....but just take the damn road.
I mostly agree. She is a product of our unhealthy political culture - a culture that myopically obsesses over horse races, the daily tit-for-tat outrage cycle, and a narrow conception of politics as only ever about “the issues”.
While that may sound odd, given her notorious independent streak, I think the independence is just an affectation - she’s molding her public persona after the Sorkinist style of center-left political fantasy.
All of that is to build towards a broader point: like most of the rest of the political establishment, she lacks an understanding of the historical forces driving the polarization and partisanship she hates so much. Sure, she understands its recent roots as well as anyone on the left does - Fox News, the Southern Strategy, etc - but she isn’t seeing enough of the picture to understand why and how our system of zero-sum election dynamics has led us to this current crisis.
No, for her, it’s politics as usual, just branded HER way as opposed to the DSC’s. She may not be an extreme progressive on Medicare 4 All like AOC, but at the end of the day, they’re both still arguing about a policy that will take at least another 10-20 years to enact -- and amidst an existential crisis for the constitutional order within which they want to enact it -- absent any real reforms that would help depolarize our politics and create a functioning multiparty democracy.
Thanks. I used to like Slate, back in the day. The few articles from The Atlantic that I have read were very good.
Sorry to say that I can't afford The Atlantic. I did find a story https://jewishinsider.com/2023/04/sen-kyrsten-sinema/ . Does any of this parallel The Atlantic?
Parallel to, but not nearly as in-depth.
FWIW, the Atlantic is only $70/year. Just one man's opinion, but it's become totally worth the price of subscription if you can make room to afford it.
It reminds me of Slate in the good old days before Trump drove them crazy, though significantly more mature and sober than Slate ever was. Measured left-of-center opinion, well-thought-out, generally avoids glibness or telling you crap you already know. Just ignore the one writer who keeps bitching about Long COVID, and you'll be mostly OK.
Well what do you think her story is? And is it close to the political reality?
I mean, she says it all right there in the interview. She thinks that she gets shit done by being a bipartisan, she doesn't see the point in preening for the media the way her colleagues do, and she prefers a values-based political approach over the traditional ideological approach -- IE, she doesn't identify as a progressive or liberal ideologue and let that define her positions, but instead has a set of values that she tries to pick positions which maximize.
As far as whether it's "close to... political reality", I think it's mostly internally coherent, for whatever that's worth. Not to shit on your question -- it's a valuable question -- but I think when we're talking about her story, we're essentially talking about a narrative, so it's more appropriate to engage her narrative within the context of past discussions we've had here (IE in this forum) on narrative.
That is to say, one of my guiding principles for many years now has been that "Narrative Creates Its Own Reality". In invoking that here, I'd say that Sinema's personal narrative deeply shapes her perception of her own reality, much more so than for most politicians. Despite her public image as a kooky, aloof dingbat, she clearly has a stronger self-conception than, say, Lindsay Graham, which gives her the confidence to trust her own judgment rather than constantly capitulate to outside pressures like he does. OTOH, her chief problem is that, because of her distaste for traditional communications strategies, she has a very hard time relating her narrative to her constituents -- especially in an environment where an entire world of media (Fox News and otherwise) is pushing its own counternarratives to hers. She has to swim upstream against all of the currents, while colleagues like Graham just go with the flow.
Her weakest point is that she doesn't really acknowledge the PR fuckups in the interview, even when directly challenged about them. It's one thing to eschew traditional communications, but you have to replace it with something else if you want to remain effective. She... doesn't. And so, when she *does* fuck up, like when she couldn't elucidate a coherent position on Build Back Better, she blames everyone else or insists it's just part of her process. It makes her look like an idiot and a dilettante, even if she isn't one. And it creates a vicious cycle where she -- as someone who prides herself on not being an idiot -- argues all the more vehemently against charges of idiocy.
So I am all for having moderate, and/or bipartisan viewpoints in congress. I honestly dream of a day when congress isn't divided into ideological silos with very little policy variety. All that is to say if Sinema has good (at least logical) reasons for her opinions then im here for it. From what ive seen of her she revels in her internal view as an 'outsider' doing things her own way. But to what ends? what sort of country does she want? it feels like she wants to play against the way things are done and be different...but doesnt have a unique idea. Its like the opposite of many conservatives in congress, instead of just being against everything put out by the Dems, shes just out there floating around. She (and by lesser extent Manchin) could have the potential to really effect change, but it seems like she is just willing to be aloof and blow shit up every so often. Her lack of ideological fealty to the Democratic line wouldnt bother me as much if she espoused her own set of beliefs on the issues of the day.
All this is to say i respect the middle road she wants to take.....but just take the damn road.
I mostly agree. She is a product of our unhealthy political culture - a culture that myopically obsesses over horse races, the daily tit-for-tat outrage cycle, and a narrow conception of politics as only ever about “the issues”.
While that may sound odd, given her notorious independent streak, I think the independence is just an affectation - she’s molding her public persona after the Sorkinist style of center-left political fantasy.
All of that is to build towards a broader point: like most of the rest of the political establishment, she lacks an understanding of the historical forces driving the polarization and partisanship she hates so much. Sure, she understands its recent roots as well as anyone on the left does - Fox News, the Southern Strategy, etc - but she isn’t seeing enough of the picture to understand why and how our system of zero-sum election dynamics has led us to this current crisis.
No, for her, it’s politics as usual, just branded HER way as opposed to the DSC’s. She may not be an extreme progressive on Medicare 4 All like AOC, but at the end of the day, they’re both still arguing about a policy that will take at least another 10-20 years to enact -- and amidst an existential crisis for the constitutional order within which they want to enact it -- absent any real reforms that would help depolarize our politics and create a functioning multiparty democracy.