This is not a facetious question. I know I can technically ask AI but i don’t think this is a simple answer TBH, as I am confused about process, and I do not know enough about US politics.
All my life when observing US politics (which I don’t really do for fun) there has generally been a very visible opposition leader, you know their name their stance etc. It’s the same for most major powers. But for the USA I simply do not know anymore. I get the jist there is only 2 parties but the democratic party seems like its just disappeared. Previously there was news of candidates etc but that’s just gone.
What is happening? and who is the leader of the opposition now?
I am not looking for a bunch of FTrump answers, it would be great to have a discussion that’s rational and not about him.
Rid yourself of the notion that democracy lies in political parties fighting each other where you get to vote on them, and you will realize that all capitalist democracies are just elaborate dictatorships disguising themselves every 4 or so years.
This “democracy” is exactly the kind of system that brought Trump to power with a useless “opposition” party that is comfortably looking away while Trump does all the dirty work that they would also like to have done if it didn’t ruin their facade.
The only real opposition can come from the people themselves.
You are right. It’s something I am trying to figure where and how I make a difference. What force do I have. It’s more that I have been conditioned this think support of a parties policy is a way forward. My mind is shifting, but I am only one person.
As @Cowbee@lemmy.ml mentioned, PSL (and a few other socialist parties), are the only real opposition, since they’re a working-class party that’s consistently anti-war and anti-capitalism.
From crash course socialism:
Socialists view democracy under capitalism to be impossible. Most current-day systems are better labeled as Bourgeois Democracy, or democracy for the rich only, which socialists contrast with proletarian democracy. Under capitalism, political parties, representatives, infrastructure, and the media are controlled by capitalists, who place restrictions on the choices given to workers, limit their representative options to vetted capitalist puppets, and limit the scope of public debate to pro-capitalist views.
Bourgeois democracies are in reality Capitalist Dictatorships, resulting in legislation favorable to the wealthy, regardless of the population’s actual preferences. The Princeton Study, conducted in the US in 2014, found that the preferences of the average US citizen exert a near-zero influence on legislation, making the US system of elections and campaigning little more than political theater. Multi-party, Parliamentary / representative democracy has proven to be the safest shell for capitalist rule, regardless of voting methods or differing political structures, for countries as diverse as Australia, Japan, Sweden, the UK, the US, South Korea, or Brazil.
Ancient Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle more accurately defined Democracy as rule by the poor, and they considered states based on elections to be anti-democratic Aristocracies, since only the wealthy and ruling families have the resources to finance elections. They contrasted this with random selection / sortition, and citizen’s assemblies, as being the defining features of democracy, both of which are nonexistent in the countries listed above. Today, liberal / parliamentary “democracies” are dominated by wealthy candidates, and entrenched political families, with Capitalists standing above political power.
This system of sham elections acts as a distracting theater piece, giving the illusion of democracy, whilst in reality it serves to platform capitalist views, make them appear more popular than they are, and manufacture consent for the system itself.
Examples of restrictions include a media and news monopoly, 2, gerrymandering, long term limits with no way to recall unpopular representatives, restrictions crafted to disenfranchise poor and minority voters, bills directly crafted by lobbyists and bourgeois lawmakers, voter suppression, electoral fraud, unverifiable closed source electronic voting systems, capitalist campaign financing, low voter to representative ratios, inconvenient voting locations and times, and most importantantly, candidate stacking. Most elections are performed before we ever get to the polling booth. In short, political democracy can’t exist without economic democracy, and true democracy is only possible when workers control production.
The impossibility of Capitalist democracy to make a transition to working-class democracy is best shown by the phrase: Capitalists will not allow you to vote away their wealth. Pacifism, and elections have never been an effective means of disenfranchising the ruling class.
Communists propose building alternatives alongside of bourgeois democracy, with the goal of to replacing it with Proletarian democracy. Measures might include:
- Replacement of bourgeois parliamentary bodies with broadly inclusive workers organizations, such as unions, councils, or syndicates.
- Seizing land, productive facilities, and housing and putting them under democratic control.
- Elimination of all debts, suppression of all private banks and stock markets.
- Direct democracy in as many decisions as possible, often called cyber communism.
- A democratically planned economy for human needs, with open participation.
- Low-level workplace democracy.
- Elimination of the standing army, and the substitution for it of armed workers.
- An emphasis on universal education, health-care, child-care, care for the elderly, and human welfare, paid for socially.
- Increase in productive technology.
- Low levels of wealth and income inequality, often driven by a system of labor vouchers for compensation.
- Experts (if any) elected by the working class through universal suffrage.
- All representatives and officials (including police) are revocable at any time.
- Public officials are paid worker’s wages.
Thanks! I don’t think OP can see my comment to begin with, so that helps with visibility. Great expansion too!
Bernie Sanders and AOC are about the closest you would get to a true opposition. But given that their own party keeps gimping them they can’t do much except stump for their position.
In the US, I’d argue that the democrats are a “controlled opposition” that is also subservient to the same oligarchs that have captured the republicans.
Jefferies and Schumer.
It should be pointed out that it’s not like a parliamentary opposition as seen in many other democracies with political discourse over a dispatch box with the leader of parliament.
The two opposition leaders in the US are:
Chuck Schumer in the Senate and Hakeem Jefries in the House.
Had to scroll too far for the actual answer.
PSL is trying to build that opposition party as we speak.
Tbh it could just be that the dems are doing a China move: do nothing and win
Right now trump can either reference Biden, knowing people are sick of that, or he simply doesn’t have a definite target, “the radical left”. An emerging leader of the centre would give him a target. So it makes sense they stay quiet.
I’m not a us citizen tho, I know that there is a lot of political activism, especially around the DSA, and the recent big protests are good signs. What I expect is that whoever ends up being the democratic leader will have a very hard time being a centrist. The demo-socialists have a big chance, but corporate media is also going to play its role in supporting a rethoric of “now that we’ve seen crazy let’s go for someone respectable, not another crazy”.
The opposition, in the wide sense, is basically Sanders and the DSA, in my view, because they are popular and they are winning some local elections, including NY. But I still doubt they are going to be the face of the dem strategy for 2028, let alone the midterms.
There’s a saying in US politics. “The Democrats fall in love and the Republicans fall in line.”
Obama, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton were all great speakers who could connect with voters at a personal level. Gore, Hillary Clinton, and the other losing candidates never had that spark.
There were a lot of “Never Trump” GOPs who shut up and fell in line once he got the nomination. Lindsay Graham said Trump was terrible, then turned around and kissed his feet repeatedly.
The US doesn’t have a parliamentary system so there really isn’t. Singular opposition leader outside of election seasons. The senate minority leader is the closest thing to an opposition figurehead, which would make Chuck Schumer the opposition leader.
This is the right answer. “Opposition leader” or a “shadow cabinet” are not meaningful terms in American politics. It’s like asking who the President of the UK is.
You could go for somewhat equivalent congressional roles like House/Senate minority leaders, or you could try to point to specific political figures that seem to be trying harder to oppose the regime who may or may not be in the federal government like governors, or people like the chair of the DNC.
Beyond “whomever holds the highest office at the moment,” there’s “whomever gets the biggest media coverage.” That might be Gavin Newsom, who’s not very popular, even in his home state. Bernie Sanders and AOC always get good coverage, but that’s partly because they’re so far outside the mainstream.
US isn’t really set up for singular leaders at the national level, which is part of what makes Trump so unusual.
The leadership in the Democratic Party is absolutely miserable at communicating, especially in this digital era. They seem to still believe in the discredited Biden era philosophy that if you simply do good things people will notice.
That’s compounded by the fact that Trump is particularly good with his lizard brain at dominating the airwaves. That makes it much harder to get your messaging out but honestly they are barely even trying. And I’m not sure they have a compelling message to begin with.
Bill. He’s good people.
