Where Is the Leadership?
– by J.P. McJefferson
Americans are frustrated—and increasingly, they are unified in that frustration. Congress’s approval ratings have been mostly underwater since 1974, averaging 28% approval and 65% disapproval. That’s 52 years, five decades of massive disapproval!
They look at Congress and see dysfunction. They look at the executive branch and see overreach or paralysis, depending on the moment. They watch crises come and go—immigration, inflation, foreign conflicts, healthcare, trade—and they see a familiar pattern: loud disagreement, political maneuvering, and very little resolution. Occasionally, they see one-sided solutions that are quickly overturned with the next change of political power.
And so they ask a simple question:
Where is the leadership?
This is not a partisan question. It is not coming solely from the left or the right. It is coming from the broad middle of the country that has reached a quiet but important conclusion:
Neither party is completely right. And neither party is completely wrong. In the not-too-distant past, Congress more regularly resolved differences through bipartisan conference committees—structured negotiations that required compromise. Today, that process is used far less often, and substantive deliberation within committees is frequently overshadowed by leadership-driven negotiations, party alignment, and public theater.
On issue after issue, Americans recognize that reality. They see merit in border security and compassion in immigration policy. They want fiscal responsibility but also functional government. They support strong national defense but are wary of endless foreign entanglements. They want affordable healthcare, but they also want efficiency and choice.
In other words, the public is not as divided as the political system that represents it.
Yet no dominant national leader is clearly articulating this truth. No one is consistently stepping forward to say:
“Here is where each side is right. Here is where each side is wrong. And here is how we move forward—together.”
Instead, leadership is largely defined by alignment with one side or the other. Success within the system depends on reinforcing party narratives, not challenging them. Even well-intentioned leaders who attempt to bridge divides often do so cautiously, quietly, or temporarily—rarely making it the centerpiece of their message.
The result is a leadership vacuum—not of individuals, but of approach.
What is missing is not intelligence, experience, or even good intentions. What is missing is a willingness—and an ability—to lead from the space in between.
This space is often misunderstood. It is not indecision. It is not weakness. And it is not an attempt to blur meaningful differences. It is, instead, a recognition that complex problems rarely yield to one-sided solutions—and that sustainable progress requires integrating competing truths.
The American public already operates in this space. Their lives demand it. They balance priorities, make tradeoffs, and accept imperfection. But the political system rewards the opposite behavior: certainty, contrast, and conflict.
That disconnect is at the heart of today’s frustration.
Voters continue to choose between the same two options, not because they are fully satisfied with either, but because the system offers no credible alternative. Third parties struggle to gain traction. Independent voices struggle to scale. And so elections become less about choosing a direction and more about avoiding an outcome.
This dynamic reinforces itself.
Leaders who might otherwise speak more openly about the limits of their own party are constrained by primary elections, donor expectations, and the realities of governing within a polarized system. Media coverage amplifies conflict over consensus. Social media tends to reward messages that are simple, certain, and easily shareable—leaving little room for the nuance and tradeoffs that real governing requires. And voters, faced with binary choices, fall back into familiar patterns—even as their dissatisfaction grows.
So the cycle continues: frustration, election, disappointment, repeat.
Breaking that cycle does not require abandoning the current system. But it does require a different kind of leadership within it.
It requires leaders who are willing to do three things consistently and publicly.
First, they must acknowledge shared reality.
This means speaking honestly about where public agreement already exists. Americans broadly agree on the need to lower costs, secure the border, maintain economic stability, and ensure that government functions effectively. These are not fringe concerns. They are mainstream expectations.
Leadership begins by recognizing that common ground—and treating it as a starting point, not an afterthought.
Second, they must tell the full truth—even when it’s uncomfortable.
That means saying, clearly and specifically:
“My party is right about this—and wrong about that.”
“The other party is right about this—and wrong about that.”
This kind of honesty carries risk. It invites criticism from both sides. But it also builds credibility with the vast number of Americans who already see the situation this way and are waiting for someone to say it out loud—as reflected in the fact that roughly half of voters now identify as independents. Meanwhile, each major party represents only a portion of the electorate (latest, 27%D, 45%I, 27%R), and tens of millions of eligible Americans choose not to participate in national elections—further underscoring the gap between the political system and the public it serves.
Third, they must offer a path forward that reflects how decisions actually get made. And that path must include not just policy solutions, but mechanisms that ensure those solutions can actually move through a system that too often resists them.
This is where calls for unity usually fall short. It is not enough to say that compromise is needed. Leaders must explain how it happens—how competing priorities are balanced through deliberation, how legislation moves in committees, and how outcomes are achieved with compromise within the constraints of the system.
Part of that path forward involves addressing a less visible but critical problem: the breakdown between public opinion and political pressure.
Even when majorities agree on an issue, that agreement rarely translates into influence at the moment decisions are made. Public engagement is often fragmented, delayed, or misaligned with the legislative process. Meanwhile, more biased, organized lobby interests operate with abundant resources continuously and strategically, shaping less desirable outcomes behind the scenes.
This is where new thinking—and new tools—must come into play.
If leadership is going to emerge from the space between the parties, it must also advocate and assist in the development of mechanisms that allow the public to operate more effectively within that space. Coordination, timing, and clarity become essential. Citizens need ways to express not just what they believe, but they must do it when it matters—and in a way that decision-makers cannot easily ignore it.
There are ideas on the table that attempt to address this gap—models that focus on coordinating civic organizations, using technology to track decision points, and mobilizing public input in real time. These concepts are not about replacing parties or overriding institutions. They are about strengthening the connection between the public and the decisions made in its name.
Whether any single model succeeds is less important than the broader principle: leadership must evolve to match the scale and complexity of modern governance. And, leaders representing the majority public interests must be supported in meaningful ways with timely, strategic input to counter predictable opposition.
The Founders of this country operated in a world where representation was more direct, communication was slower, and the distance between citizens and lawmakers was far smaller. Today, that distance has grown dramatically. The tools of accountability have not kept pace.
Modern leadership must close that gap—not just through rhetoric, but through structure.
This is not an easy path. It requires resisting the incentives that dominate the current system. It requires patience, discipline, and a willingness to endure criticism from all sides. And it requires trust—trust that the American people are capable of engaging with complexity, and that they are ready for something more than the choices they have been given.
But the alternative is already visible.
Continued polarization. Continued gridlock. Continued erosion of trust. The eventual erosion of democracy itself.
Americans are not asking for perfection. They are not demanding that every disagreement be resolved or every problem solved overnight. What they are asking for is far more basic—and far more reasonable:
They want leaders who see the full picture.
They want leaders who speak honestly about it.
And they want leaders who can turn that understanding into action.
The space for that kind of leadership is wide open, and the timing could not be more critical. After five decades of disapproval, the system is near collapse.
The question is not whether the public is ready for it.
The question is who has the vision and is willing to step into it.
“And it requires trust—trust that the American people are capable of engaging with complexity, and that they are ready for something more than the choices they have been given.”
Are voters capable of engaging with complexity. I don’t think so.
They have been trained for 5 decades not to. McJefferson has not engaged with the reality that the paralysis he identifies is predominantly one-sided. One side says “government bad => reduce taxes”. The other side offers meaningful solutions for the government to do something good; solutions that do engage with the complexity of real-life problems. Policy by policy voters actually tend to agree with Democrats, but Republicans are still able to put out propaganda that dissuades voters from engaging with complexity.
Much about our culture amplifies the “government bad” mantra. Hollywood loves vigilante stories. Corrupt cops are the kingpins. The Washington press tells us who is being kicked out of Congress, but not who is proposing legislation that deals with complexity. McJefferson discusses dysfunction without admitting how one-sided it is.
J.P.
I believe the first paragraph states most of the issue:
“Americans are frustrated—and increasingly, they are unified in that frustration. Congress’s approval ratings have been mostly underwater since 1974, averaging 28% approval and 65% disapproval. That’s 52 years, five decades of massive disapproval!”
The issue being: “They are tired of having to pay Congress’s lack of ability when they campaigned saying they could provide solutions to resolving healthcare, poverty, jobs, education, etc.
All they have experienced are more tax cuts for the upper 10% while they lose healthcare subsidies, Medicaid, and maybe even Medicare. I guess you can not believe a fraud and a liar who claims alot but delivers nothing.
The Republicans dropped all that crap in the 1990s. They were all about winning and giving every last thing to the rich and powerful, and no method was too base to consider. Since then, The Democrats have pretended the the Republicans were still concerned with governing rather than looting, but after thirty years or so of getting their asses kicked are finally considering fighting back.
The American people may think less and less of Congress, but they voted for those people repeatedly. When Orwell imagined the future as a boot smashing a human face, he didn’t imagine two strong arms yanking the boot down again and again.
Yes, dysfunction is often more concentrated on one side than the other. But the focus of my argument is a level above that.
What I’m pointing to is a broader, more persistent pattern: across a wide range of major issues, where public opinion tends to converge around positions that incorporate elements from both sides. Not perfectly, and not without contradiction, but more often than our politics reflects.
At the same time, our governing system rarely translates that convergence into action. Instead, it tends to amplify division, reward party alignment, and stall in the space where compromise would need to occur. So while it’s valid to debate where dysfunction is greater in a given moment, the larger problem is that the system itself struggles to act even when there is meaningful public agreement.
That’s where I believe the leadership gap exists.
The public—Democrats, Republicans, and especially Independents—has shown repeatedly that it is not fully aligned with either party’s approach. Yet our choices remain largely binary, and third-party alternatives have not proven viable at scale.
That leaves a narrow but important path: leadership that emerges within the existing system, but speaks more directly to where the public actually is—acknowledging tradeoffs, recognizing valid concerns on both sides, and focusing on outcomes rather than alignment. That kind of leadership requires recognizing that neither side, on its own, is consistently producing solutions that reflect the broader public will.
On the public and their ability to handle the complexity issue, I don’t mean to suggest that most voters are sitting down and working through complex policy tradeoffs in detail. Like all of us, people rely on shortcuts, trusted sources, and simplified narratives. What I am suggesting is something a bit different: when issues are presented clearly and in practical terms, the public often gravitates toward positions that reflect a balance of competing priorities.
Finally, most Americans agree the system is broken. If we continue the same cycle of dysfunction and non-governance without charting a new path, we are, or will be, at a breaking point.
@JP,
The problem is that negative campaigning works, both to win elections and raise money. In that environment, how do we elect leaders who care about policy?
Agree, that’s a problem, and it’s not easy, but that’s where a different kind of leadership has an opening.
It doesn’t require eliminating negative campaigning—it requires reframing the choice. Instead of running solely against the other side, a leader can run on explaining where both sides fall short and how a more practical path forward can produce results.
That’s not an easy path. It likely attracts criticism from both directions. But it also has the potential to connect with voters who are tired of the cycle and open to something more substantive.
In other words, the same conditions that make negative campaigning effective also create the opportunity for a message that rises above it—if it’s credible, clear, and grounded in how decisions actually get made. It’s a difficult nut to crack, but what’s the choice?
Consider specifics.
ACA was based on a plan from the Heritage Foundation but Republicans decided anything from Obama should be opposed.
The Emergency National Security Supplemental Appropriations Act was a compromise bill, but it was killed by Republicans.
Voters did not want Roe v Wade overturned. It did not allow unlimited abortions.
It is hard to quantify compromise on global warming when Democrats think we should do more and Republicans still call it a hoax.
As an engineer I was asked to show that I was working on the factors that were the greatest contributors to the problem. Yes, voters like compromise, but to suggest that Democratic leaders are unwilling to compromise is to deny the primary factor.
@Arne,
“ACA was based on a plan from the Heritage Foundation but Republicans decided anything from Obama should be opposed.
Indeed. And to add, prior to the ACA it was implemented in Massachusetts by *Republican* Governor Willard “Mitt” Romney.
Arne,
I totally understand and recognize your specific examples. I could add even more. The point is, the country demands decisions, solutions, and budgets surrounding increasingly complex problems. We can’t keep going down the road with one-sided solutions overturned with the next change of power, or no solutions at all. We have to try something new with a different attitude from leadership. Unfortunately, we don’t have the ability to wish the opposition away. We have to work with the people and players we have. The demands of the decisions we are not making may soon overtake us.