Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s recent farewell from the Senate has been marked by more than just a graceful exit—it’s been a striking final rebuke against her former Democratic colleagues, especially Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.

From her perspective, the Democratic Party threw her under the bus after she resisted their relentless push to dismantle the filibuster, a move she saw as a vital defense against the extremism of one-party rule. Now, as she steps aside to make way for Ruben Gallego, who clinched victory over Republican Kari Lake, Sinema isn’t shying away from calling out the hypocrisy of Democratic leadership, especially Schumer’s newfound call for “bipartisanship.”

Sinema’s unwavering stance on preserving the filibuster was a thorn in the side of Democrats eager to push through their agenda without opposition. She knew that eliminating the filibuster would make the Senate little more than a rubber stamp for the majority party’s latest wish list. Her refusal to follow the radical shift was, in many ways, the beginning of her estrangement from the Democratic base.

By preserving the filibuster, she argued, the Senate could remain a chamber that forces compromise and temperance, rather than a fast-tracked vehicle for short-term majorities. And now, as Schumer appeals for unity and bipartisanship post-election, it’s little wonder Sinema is taking the chance to expose what she sees as a hollow political maneuver.

What’s the one tool that requires the Senate to work in a bipartisan way?

Oh look, the filibuster. https://t.co/MKWoTkDT3d

— Kyrsten Sinema (@kyrstensinema) November 18, 2024

Predictably, her criticism hasn’t gone over well with her former liberal base. Many have taken to social media to vent their frustration, some even descending into name-calling or invoking wild accusations to discredit her. Yet, Sinema’s bluntness serves as a reminder of what’s been lost in modern Washington—a senator willing to uphold an unpopular position for the long-term stability of the institution, even if it means alienating her party.

Sinema’s commitment to the filibuster has long-term implications that extend beyond party loyalty. The reality is that removing the filibuster would unleash a legislative free-for-all, where every newly elected party majority could impose sweeping changes with no mechanism for compromise. In a political landscape as divided as today’s, that kind of unchecked power is a recipe for instability and tyranny of the majority.

Sinema understood that the filibuster is one of the few remaining safeguards that prevent Congress from swinging wildly with each election cycle. The more often Washington deadlocks, the fewer sweeping overhauls are imposed on the American public—a win for those who would rather see Washington stay out of their lives.

your “biparstianship” just helped get a Fascist elected.

Wishing you the absolute worst.

— oleg lisovskiya (@noobasuar) November 18, 2024

For Republicans, it’s time to heed Sinema’s warning. While the GOP may be savoring their current majority, preserving the filibuster remains the best protection against future Democratic overreach. We don’t need a government that imposes sweeping, unilateral change based on slim majorities; we need a government that’s forced to listen to all sides, even when it’s inconvenient. Republicans should be strategic in securing the filibuster’s survival, even if it means short-term legislative delays. Because when Democrats inevitably return to power, the filibuster could be the only thing standing between conservative America and a wholesale legislative overhaul.