So, Kyrsten Sinema, Senator from the great state of Arizona (as they say), has decided to leave the Democratic Party and register as an Independent. She has also said that she will not become a Republican, that her views and voting patterns will not change, and that she expects to retain her committee assignments in the new Congress. A representative of the Democratic Party has said that they expect Sinema will continue to “cooperate” with the party and retain her positions. Sinema has not said that she will “caucus” with the party.

So what does this mean? Why did she do it if it isn’t going to change anything? And why did she wait until right after the results of the Georgia run-off became known to make this announcement?

Of course, changing parties is not unique to Sinema. I remember when Strom Thurmond, Democratic Senator from South Carolina, became Strom Thurmond, Republican Senator from South Carolina. I remember when my classmate Joe Lieberman, Democratic Senator from Connecticut, became Joe Lieberman, Independent Senator from Connecticut. And I vaguely remember when Arlen Specter, Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, left the Republican party.

It is also true that being an Independent Senator will not be unique to Sinema. There are two other Independents now in the Senate. Bernie Sanders of Vermont is (and I think always has been) an Independent who not only caucuses with the Democrats, but was a participant in the race for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency. Angus King of Maine has served as an Independent senator since his first run for the Senate and was an Independent governor of Maine before that. He has registered as an Independent for more than 30 years. He also caucuses with the Democrats.

But the dynamics of the incoming Senate are fraught. With the victory of Warnock in Georgia, the Democrats and those caucusing with them have 51 votes. With 51 votes, the Democrats control all Senate committees and have a one vote cushion on important legislation that requires 51 votes (like certain budget and budget reconciliation measures, and judicial and executive nominees). If the Senate was split 50-50 on the other hand, all Senate committees are 50-50 (which can stall judicial nominees in committee, for example), and legislation to be passed on a partisan basis requires the vote of the Vice President as a tie-breaker. And, if the Senate is 50-50, the loss of one member (death or party change) can totally reverse things, and although the oldest Senate members are Republicans, I think, death or disability can come to anyone, and we know that not only Sinema, but Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia, have had trouble agreeing with the remainder of the party on certain important issues. A loss of both Manchin and Sinema could certainly change everything.

But there’s a reason for Sinema to stick with the Democrats, even as an Independent. Mainly, for committee assignments, which must be important to her constituents in Arizona. But why, unlike King and Sanders, has she not said she would caucus with the Dems?

And what good does it do Sinema to become an Independent? I assume it means she will give up any monetary and other assistance she would otherwise get from the Democratic Party in her next election in 2024. It may also mean that she will have a Democratic opponent in the next Senate race, and that her Independent status may split the otherwise Democratic vote in the state and give the Senate seat to a Republican. But she might also feel that it helps her politically in her state, making Independents (and Arizona apparently has many registered Independents) more likely to vote for her if indeed the next Arizona Senate election is a two person election.

But it may decrease her ability to move up the committee ranks in a Senate under Democratic control. It will mean that she will be under relentless pressure from the Republican party for her to go all the way and join them – they could offer her some potentially power positions, more than she would otherwise get. There may be some back-office conversations that we know nothing about.

But I have another question. Sinema was elected to her current term as a Democrat, with Democratic party support and money. Isn’t there such a thing as loyalty to them that brought ya? And to them that voted ya in? I can understand changing party affiliation at the end of your term when you are running for reelection. But to simply change in the middle of your term of office? When you haven’t been kicked out, or discriminated against, by the party you are deserting? I find that morally and ethically questionable.

No, that’s not exactly right. I find it morally and ethically offensive.