See Disclaimer.
Last Saturday, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) held a Town Hall in my county—one of over 1,100 in Oregon since first getting elected in 1996. In fulfilling his promise of at least one Town Hall in every county of the state per year, he is setting an example of consistent accountability to constituents. An example that all elected officials would do well to follow—but many (in particular Republicans) increasingly don’t.
I was most impressed by the audience. Even if they seemed mostly politically aligned with Mr. Wyden, participants asked insightful, probing and even adversarial questions. Questions were rarely self-centered, but rather caring and supportive of some civic principle or community in need: A doctor concerned with the impact of legislation on elder communities. High school students wondering how they could participate in the political process before the voting age. Someone concerned with congressional arms support for Israel and implications for Gaza children. Someone else concerned with the Israeli hostages taken by Hamas. Yet someone else fearing for first generation Americans. And another person concerned with states’ rights. Etc. All kept courteous and respectful, and moving at a fast but unhurried pace for over 90 minutes.
A lottery system determined who was given time to ask questions, so the Senator had no pre-knowledge or control over the questions. But he had good answers in most cases, building on his experience and record, and often offering welcome specifics. What he could not offer were solutions (aside from occasional mitigation strategies) for the current national crisis.
Some kernels of political savvy and wisdom were memorable. He offered an internship in his office to an articulated teenager eager to engage the political process. And he advised another that best civic participation tends to result from (a) following one’s passion, (b) becoming deeply knowledgeable in one’s areas of interest, and (c) associating with appropriate critical-mass groups.
Ultimately, perhaps his best message was that “the best politics is good policy.” I agree! That is not a new idea, but it remains an essential one. And it brings up the question: Why not creating an Opposition Cabinet, as a form of constructive and effective opposition to an overreaching administration?
The luck of the lottery draw did not allow me to ask the question at the Town Hall, but I did submit this written commentary to the Senator’s staff, leveraging two of my recent posts [1,2]:
Context: The Trump administration needs to be opposed effectively. A powerful approach would be an Opposition Cabinet—a shadow government unifying and giving critical mass to the opposition while preparing a path to rebuild the country when the time comes.
The charge should include:
- Protect democracy—by ensuring continued separation of powers and keeping elections free.
- Hold the Trump administration to account, politically and legally—strategically and meaningfully, with a country-first rather than partisan perspective.
- Develop and effectively communicate alternative policy positions on critical national issues—creating a blueprint for rebuilding the nation, both from recent drastic damage and from historical inaction or inefficiency on fundamental issues.
- Build a broad electoral coalition for 2026 and 2028—perhaps inclusive of independents, Trump-opposing Republicans, and minor parties.
Composition? Perhaps anchor the Opposition Cabinet on the associations of Democratic Governors and Attorney Generals, who collectively have the necessary executive and legal experience to enable a running start. But give it a broader political and functional diversity.
Example of an action (among many possible and needed) with long term implications? Science is under attack—a common approach in attempts to establish authoritarianism. At the core of the attack is starving academia from research funding. An Opposition Cabinet could take the lead in proposing and helping implement an alternative research funding model—a hybrid across private, federal and state funding that protects science and universities from undue influences, wherever they come from.
Questions: Is an opposition Cabinet under consideration? If so, can you tell us more about it? If not, why not?
— Antonio Baptista
References:
[1] Needed: an Opposition Cabinet (posted 02/25/2025). https://outoftheboxblog.org/2025/02/25/needed-an-opposition-cabinet
[2] Re-thinking academic research funding (posted 06/15/2025). https://outoftheboxblog.org/2025/06/15/re-thinking-academic-research-funding/
Outside the box 