Brad Christo lives in South Berwick.

Passivity will be our demise. Rules, decorum and integrity are quaint norms now. Our electoral system is ill-equipped to confront the urgency gnawing at us by dictatorship. Waiting for either 2026 or 2028 to determine new leadership for an opposition Democratic Party is like waiting for Godot; there is neither time nor salvation for us.

Congressional leadership is in a vacuum. Primarily this is due to structural dynamics inherent to the institutions more than any one individual’s personality and abilities, yet not by much. In November 2024, did Democrats in the House attain a majority or did those in the Senate retain one? No.

Yet, this system rewards continued leadership positions to individuals who presided over their party’s defeat. An example of their inadequacies, these leaders, Rep. Jeffries and Sen. Schumer, have known since their March stunning disunity that another government shutdown looms in October. Six months to develop a coherent strategy has proven elusive to them, as their plan is certainly not clear to us.

What is the logic in a vote for or against a shutdown when the same party votes differently between the two caucuses? There is no logic; this is confused leadership. The ambiguity of a muddled approach from either perspective is a losing proposition. Democrats need to win support on the merits of a loud, clear and concise message. Otherwise there will be calamity.

Confidence is waning in our representatives’ ability to resist, because this system does not promote the leadership qualities our present political crisis demands to fight against one-party rule. Believing in bipartisanship now is naïve, if not dangerous. Incessant lies and outright projection are performative functions of the party in control.

Essentially, there is no issue devoid of their corruption, and not linking the two is political malpractice. Call it what it is.

No matter how one feels about a political system controlled prominently by two parties, it is inconsequential. Only one of these parties believes, albeit not fiercely enough, in a constitutional federal republic. The problem is this one party, the Democrats, defeated in the last election, has no mechanism post-election to stimulate ideas and policies for electing new leadership to engage this omnipresent reality now with effect.

The old way, laced with norms, is torn and battered. It reveals weak leadership with little fight to make a difference because they attempt to advance some semblance of resistance (letter writing) within the realm of extinguished norms; they are flailing in their ability to adapt.

An antiquated seniority system, tied to fundraising, entitles and propels individuals into leadership roles at the expense of advancing, by merit, the best or most dynamic talent. Our political moment requires changes to this approach, yet time and tradition are an impediment.

Can our present congressional leadership just step aside, and allow a process to unfold in which those with the abilities and passion to confront this new reality are free to assert them? Then again, this is wide-eyed optimism asking too much, too late.

Would I be playing the fool, would you, in believing we should depend on our representatives to take the initiative to confront constructively this darkness pressed upon our republic? Would we allow the shadow of Godot threaten us with timidity?

Until the citizenry demonstrates, en masse, their dissatisfaction with the regime in Washington, then, and only then, might this meek attempt at opposition governance awake.

It is up to us, in our many civil protests, not in passive polling, to gather the strength to act and, with this, the hope of sparking new leadership to rise and impress upon our representatives the urgency to confront, resist and reverse the systematic oppression of this regime consolidating unjust power.

It is our responsibility. We are here, if not fast approaching that moment, when, as John Lewis said, we must consider “good trouble, necessary trouble” to survive as a republic.