Asklemmy

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.

"Opposition Leader" is only a role in parliamentary systems where the leader of the second party has that role.

Typically, legislative "minority leader" positions fill a lot of those roles that an opposition leader would, but it isn't official.

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.

The Democrat higher ups by and large threw a temper tantrum when their base protested them allowing their emotional support ethnostate to murder people with impunity.

PSL is trying to build that opposition party as we speak.

The US doesn't have a parliamentary system so there really isn't a 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.

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.

The two opposition leaders in the US are:

Chuck Schumer in the Senate and Hakeem Jefries in the House.

I come from a country using the more traditional form of the "Westminster" system of government that the US' system is also based upon but which from the outset made significant departures from. Because your use of the term "opposition leader" I'm going to hazard a guess you might be from another Westminster Style parliamentary democracy nation as well. If that's the case I think what's happening here is that you're expecting a "leader of the opposition", a singular individual officially holding that specific title, like we have in Westminster style Parliamentary systems. The US works a bit differently, and no such role exists. Likely the reason you remembered a person occupying this role in the past is because you were probably seeing press coverage of the opposition party's official presidential candidate, which would look like a leader of the opposition to us but there's a big difference because they do a different job.

In the US system the elected representatives of both chambers of their bicameral system, which over there is referred to as "congress" rather than "parliament" as in many Commonwealth countries, are voted in by local electoral processes like in Westminster systems, however unlike in the Westminster system, the 'executive branch' which is the branch of government that is headed by the office of, 'president' is voted in by an entirely separate process and the president themselves aren't a member of the congress; they're not in the House of Representatives or the Senate and they also don't have to face question time by them either. When the president loses an election or serves out their maximum term limits, they tend to fade from media attention because they don't have any real job anymore in the party. In a Westminster system, a Prime Minister has a double job, they got their seat in parliament and thus eligibility for their Prime Minister role by winning an election to be the elected representative of a small local area within the nation they govern at the same time as their party's officially chosen leader which the party gave them through internal decision making. This means when their party is in power their job is to be both a local representative and a prime minister and when their party is out of government, their job is to continue to be that local representative (unless that local area got sick of them and also voted them out) AND the official leader of the "shadow" cabinet. In that role as leader of the opposition they have to represent the party in front of the media and respond to the actions of the government of the day and criticise and challenge them. They're a constant face as they try to either lead the party BACK in to power they lost or until the party has a vote internally and decides that the public probably won't vote for them while they continue to have their current leader and they decide to pick a different one.

In the US system parties have leaders in each of their two chambers of congress, one for the Senate and one for the House of Representatives so that's why if you ask your question as you've phrased it, some people might answer you with Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries who are the opposition or "Minority" leaders in both the Senate and House of Representatives respectively right now, both of them from the Democratic party which does not currently hold majority in either chamber hence "minority" leaders. This can get pretty confusing if you're used to the Westminster system because in the US, the election of their president and the election of members of their congress (which would be our parliament) are entirely separate elections and the process by which one becomes a one of two leaders in Congress on behalf of a party or by which one becomes a party's official presidential nominee are different and so you have no opposition leader or 3 depending on what you decide the equivalent of the opposition leader is.

So finally, the bit that hopefully explains why it seemed like before you had a more known face as a leader of the opposition. When they pick candidates for Presidential elections, as opposed to Congress, major parties in the US have since the 70s done this via a process of lots of separate local elections around the country known as the 'primaries' run by the parties themselves (which are private organisations) with votes cast by members of the public who've chosen to register with the party. It's a very long winded process but eventually this leads to an additional voting contest where the people voting are party insiders that are theoretically bound to vote in a way that lines up with the results of those earlier contests. This happens on the year of a presidential election so until then they don't officially have a nominee. Likely in the past there would have been a lot of coverage of a nominee once they became an official nominee so those could well be the people you were thinking of as opposition leaders before. There's usually also pretty strong favourites before someone is officially announced as a nominee including former presidential race losers sometimes as happened with Trump and so there's usually some faces that kinda looks like they're probably likely to be the next presidential nominee for their party before this process and also during the long months of primaries before the official final vote that picks a winner. If your question was why isn't anyone seemingly strongly emergent from your perspective this time around well as an outsider I'm less well placed to know the answer but I would suspect that the way things shook out last time with them having to dump Biden at the last minute and inserting Harris outside of the whole primaries process and then her losing has left them in a bit of a shambles and that messy loss combined with a lot of ill will over what seemed to be a concerted effort by party insiders back in 2016 to rig the process of selecting their nominee and the fact that they're in minority in both chambers of congress might have made the party a more fractured entity of late with less candidates that have strong public support and the blessing of the powerful party insiders, that are clearly raising their heads just yet. But this last bit I'm really much less informed about, I'm mostly just focusing on the US electoral mechanics because they seem so weird when you're used to the Westminster system.

The official opposition leadership is Jefferies and Schumer. They are both wildly innefective as leaders. Unfortunately. Frankly I'm puzzled as to how no politician has been able to capitalize on this vacuum of oppositional power.

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.

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.

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.