A Different Kind of Democrat: Kyrsten Sinema and Bill Clinton’s Triangulation Strategy

U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema speaking at an event in Phoenix, Arizona. Photo by Gage Skidmore.

With her eclectic and unconventional wardrobe, Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema has always stood out among her colleagues. Despite this, her rise to fame was not due to her colorful wigs and sequin accessories, but rather her position as the deciding vote in much of President Joe Biden’s ambitious legislative agenda. In a chamber split 50/50, Senator Sinema and her fellow Democratic moderates have a new importance in negotiations with President Biden and Democratic party leadership. 

But Senator Sinema differs from fellow moderates in one important way: her ideology has shifted dramatically since her entry into politics. Sinema started as a left-wing, anti-war activist following her graduation from Brigham Young University in 1995 and briefly served as a social worker, during which she identified as an independent. She ran in two local elections, both of which she lost. She eventually changed her party identification to Democrat, and in 2004, she won a seat in the Arizona House of Representatives. 

In the state legislature, Senator Sinema associated herself with progressive causes, but her activism did not last long. In her 2009 book, Unite and Conquer: How to Build Coalitions That Win, Senator Sinema describes her exhaustive advocacy against conservative policies, only to watch them easily pass the Republican-controlled state legislature. She realized that in a Republican-held House, her advocacy was mostly useless. In her book, Senator Sinema described herself as a “patron saint of lost causes.” Consequently, she turned to bipartisan coalition-building as her primary method of legislating. 

Senator Sinema maintains an image as an eccentric rule-breaker, but her moderate stances are what draw the most attention. In 2020, Democrats won a razor-thin majority in the Senate allowing Sinema to become the face of bipartisanship. Alongside Republican Senator Rob Portman, Sinema spearheaded a historic bipartisan infrastructure bill, signed by the president on November 15, 2021.  

Senator Sinema’s role as a bipartisan leader has become contentious because of her refusal to support the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion social spending package. In negotiations, Sinema has called for moderation, citing concerns about the level of spending. Her opposition to certain allocations, like raising the corporate tax rate, has led many political commentators to wonder where the Arizona Senator’s intentions lie. Unlike her fellow moderate obstructionist, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Sinema does not represent a deeply red state. On the contrary, in recent years, Arizona has become increasingly liberal. 

So, who is Kyrsten Sinema, and what does she want? This question has been explored widely by political commentators, who have often resorted to calling Sinema a frivolous attention-seeker. Sinema is notoriously quiet about her political motives, no one truly knows her intentions. But we can get a sense of her strategy by focusing on the broader political past. Sinema is not the first politician to embrace her opponents’ views to build their image and bolster their influence. In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton also used this strategy. It may seem like a strange comparison to make as Clinton was not a senator nor did he have a glaring progressive phase like Sinema, however, the similarity lies in how both Clinton and Sinema embraced conservative principles to present themselves as practical policy-makers. Both sought an image of themselves that transcended traditional partisanship.

Unlike with Sinema, there is no question that Clinton used this strategy. Clinton-era advisors and even the ex-president himself have published books that outline a fascinating approach to policy-making centered around moderation. There was a clear shift in President Clinton’s legislative ideology following the Democrats’ significant defeat in the 1994 midterms. In the earliest days of his presidency, Clinton advocated for a massive overhaul of the American healthcare system, and he was instrumental in the passage of the Brady Act, which mandated federal background checks and a waiting period for firearm purchases. After the 1994 midterms, Clinton’s legislative focus shifted to embrace views of congressional Republicans. In August of 1996, Clinton signed a momentous overhaul of the American welfare system. Written by Republican members of Congress, the “Welfare to Work” bill limited the number of Americans who were eligible to benefit from national welfare programs. 

President Clinton focused on deregulation as a method of winning over conservatives, in addition to embracing Reagan-era rhetoric about the dangers of a powerful federal government. President Clinton went so far as to proclaim, “the era of big government is over” in his 1996 State of the Union address, delivered less than a year before his reelection. This rhetorical shift stopped the Republican takeover of the federal government and helped Clinton win reelection in November of 1996. This strategy, called “triangulation politics,” was developed and coined by President Clinton’s chief political advisor, Dick Morris. 

Triangulation politics refers to when a politician adopts some of their opponents’ views to appear “above” either side of the political spectrum. This strategy allowed Clinton to present himself as a practical and effective policy-maker, who was willing to abandon partisan antics to pass meaningful legislation. In his book, Behind the Oval Office: Getting Reelected Against All Odds, Morris outlines Clinton’s use of the triangulation strategy. He writes, "the president needed to take a position that not only blended the best of each party’s views but also transcended them to constitute a third force in the debate.” This allowed Clinton to adjust to the country’s political climate by taking credit for the Republicans’ accomplishments, who took control of Congress following the 1994 midterms. 

Senator Sinema’s politics have often taken this same approach. She has regularly embraced conservative talking points and engaged in talks with Republican senators. Sinema’s conservative rhetoric has become more prominent since she announced her opposition to Senate Democrats’ historic social spending bill. This bill is a cornerstone of President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan and aims to achieve various progressive goals including raising the corporate tax rate and allocating funds for social programs. Sinema based her opposition to the bill on her ​​concerns about the massive price tag, aggravating progressive Democrats and garnering praise from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Senator Sinema has also stated her staunch opposition to the abolition of the Senate filibuster, aligning herself with Republicans despite immense pressure from progressives. 

Although nearly every politician pledges to work with the opposition party, unlike Sinema, they rarely follow suit. Once elected, senators tend to fall in line with their party leadership. In an increasingly divided Congress, this partisanship has become more and more prominent. Nevertheless, Sinema has continued to go against the grain by refusing to give in to pressure from Democratic leadership. 

Through embracing conservative talking points and never shying away from working with Republicans, Senator Sinema is slowly building an image as a pragmatic policy-maker. Her bipartisan infrastructure package was born out of her desire to prove that the two parties can, and should, work together. She has placed her politics of moderation not just between Democrats and Republicans, but above them. This may explain her shift from a progressive anti-war advocate to a moderate pragmatic: an intentional move that allowed Sinema to paint herself the same way Bill Clinton did from 1994-1996, as an effective legislator whose beliefs transcend partisanship. 

It is impossible to say what the next steps are for Senator Sinema, but in just one term in the Senate, she has built a name for herself as an antithesis to partisanship. Even with the negative press she has received, Senator Sinema has crafted an image around pragmatic, bipartisan policy-making. If Senator Sinema has her eyes on the White House, presenting herself as a successful legislator, who refuses to take one side, she may be seen as a refreshing change from increasing political polarization in the U.S. Congress.  

Senator Sinema is undoubtedly a frustrating figure, especially for progressive Democrats who see 2022 as a fleeting chance to pursue long-awaited legislative initiatives. But the theories that her political moves are empty attempts for attention do not account for the clear shift she has made since entering politics. Bill Clinton’s use of triangulation politics, though extremely controversial, was crucial to his reelection efforts. With the Democrats’ spending package still being considered in the Senate Sinema continues to get frequent press attention for her positions. Detested by her own party and esteemed by the opposition, It could be years before we know whether Senator Sinema’s contentious legislative strategy will progress or hinder her career.

Layne Donovan is a junior at Barnard College studying history who’s interested in the happenings of the U.S Congress. She is from Wauwatosa, Wisconsin and shares a birthday with Senator Kyrsten Sinema.