Can We the People Fill the Void?
In many democracies, the Leader of the Opposition is a built-in check on power, a visible counterweight. In the U.S., that role doesn’t exist.
Instead, opposition emerges every four years during a presidential campaign—only to dissolve the moment the votes are counted. It has no singular voice, no institutional role, no guaranteed platform. This is not an accident. The U.S. system was designed without formalized party opposition, as the Founders feared factionalism. But history has shown that parties form regardless, and the lack of a designated opposition leader has become a serious vulnerability. When the party out of power is fractured, it is easy to divide and conquer.
For much of U.S. history, other democratic institutions—Congress, the press, state governments—compensated for this weakness. But today, those mechanisms are eroding, and without a strong opposition, power is consolidating at an alarming rate.
If our system won’t give us a Leader of the Opposition, can we the people create one ourselves?
A System Built for Vulnerability
For most of the 20th century, the absence of an opposition leader wasn’t a crisis because democracy had other guardrails. The media served as a watchdog, exposing corruption and holding leaders accountable. The Senate was once a chamber of real debate, where minority leaders held sway. Even within parties, dissent was tolerated—conservative Democrats shaped the South, while liberal Republicans counterbalanced their party’s extremes.
But those counterweights have crumbled. The media is fragmented, with trust in journalism plummeting amid accusations of bias. Congress has become a rubber stamp for party leadership, with fewer independent power centers. And the Republican Party no longer debates policy—it enforces loyalty.
Donald Trump didn’t create this system, but he (or rather, his minders, pulling the strings) has exploited its weaknesses masterfully. He has turned the media into a battlefield, using misinformation to discredit objective truth. He has reshaped the Republican Party into a personalist movement, where internal opposition is punished, and the only real power struggle is between those vying to prove their allegiance. And most importantly, he has revealed how fragile opposition can be in a system where no one person or institution is formally tasked with leading it.
The Consequences of a Leaderless Opposition
Leaderless, opposition fractures. Misinformation spreads. And power? It doesn’t disappear. It gets bought.
This vacuum creates three distinct vulnerabilities:
Divisibility – The opposition splinters into competing factions. Moderate Republicans, progressives, and establishment Democrats often spend as much time fighting each other as they do countering authoritarian drift.
Disinformation – In an era of weaponized misinformation, the absence of a credible opposition leader makes it easier for false narratives to spread unchecked. Without a singular voice trusted widely enough to cut through the noise, competing truths battle for dominance.
Oligarchic Influence – The vacuum left by a weak opposition is easily filled by billionaires, tech moguls, and media personalities. Elon Musk owns Twitter, now a hub of right-wing propaganda. Peter Thiel funds anti-democratic candidates. Rupert Murdoch’s media empire sets the conservative agenda. Without a unified counterforce, the opposition is left playing defense.
But power is never truly leaderless. When institutions fail to provide leadership, others step in. The question is—should we allow it to be seized, or should we claim it ourselves?
Could We the People Anoint an Opposition Leader?
If the system won’t provide an opposition leader, one possible remedy is for the public to create one through collective recognition. There are two possible approaches:
Option 1: A Single Recognized Figure
One approach would be for the opposition—through grassroots organizing, social media, and media momentum—to rally around a single leader, even if the system does not formally grant them the title. This could be someone like Stacey Abrams, Gavin Newsom, or Katie Porter—figures who have demonstrated the ability to mobilize people and counter disinformation.
A single leader could provide coherence, discipline, and a clear alternative vision. But the risks are just as significant. Without formal institutional backing, their legitimacy would always be questioned. The media might resist giving them a platform, and party elites—who fear losing control—could work to undermine them. A single figure can also be targeted, subjected to relentless attacks designed to discredit them.
Option 2: A Decentralized Leadership Model
An alternative would be to embrace a coalition model, where instead of one opposition leader, a group of prominent figures work together to provide direction and accountability. Imagine a collective of governors, senators, activists, and journalists forming a united front, each reinforcing the other’s message.
This model is more resilient—it’s harder to discredit multiple leaders at once. It also allows for a broader ideological spectrum, preventing the opposition from becoming another personality-driven movement. However, coordination challenges would be immense. Without a clear hierarchy, messaging could become inconsistent, and internal disagreements could weaken the movement.
It’s easy to believe that someone will step up. That institutions will self-correct. That opposition will form naturally. But history rarely rewards those who hesitate. The longer the seat remains empty, the harder it becomes to reclaim.
Making It Work: Practical Steps
If we were to create an opposition leader—either singular or decentralized—how could we make it effective? Some key mechanisms could include:
Harnessing Social Media – Traditional media outlets may be reluctant to legitimize an informal opposition leader, but grassroots support through social media could build legitimacy. Movements like Indivisible have already shown how this can work.
Reclaiming Independent Media – Alternative news platforms, podcasts, and investigative journalists could play a crucial role in elevating opposition voices. Imagine a coordinated effort between figures like Heather Cox Richardson, Dan Rather, and civic-minded influencers to shape the national conversation.
Lessons from History – There are precedents for opposition leadership forming outside of government structures. The civil rights movement had no official Leader of the Opposition, but figures like Martin Luther King Jr. filled that role through moral clarity and mass mobilization.
What Comes Next?
A government without checks is not a democracy. And an opposition without leadership is no opposition at all.
There was a time when opposition was an institution, a force as permanent as government itself. Now, it is something else entirely—a choice. The seat is still empty.
But not for long.
Power doesn’t wait for permission. It moves. The only question is—who moves it?