I recently came across a horrible piece of software called Silverfast which now doesn’t have a manual anymore. They still have their manuals up to some windows xp version which may or may not still be how certain parts of its operation are done, impossible to know. In lieu of a manual they’ve posted some videos on YouTube, some on Vimeo, different narrators each time, some terrible quality, some just fine, some of them seem from the screen recording to be a couple of versions old, some are more recent. They’re covering single topics so that it SORTA functions like a replacement for the manual in that you can search for topics like one would in a manual and hopefully find a video but it doesn’t function like a manual does since it’s obviously not static and not a proper reference and you’ve got to imprecisely try to seek around to get back to bits where the info you needed was. To add insult to injury, of you search the website for the manual, they have a document referred to as the user manual so you think you’ve finally found it, but it turns out it’s a quick start installer guide which would annoy me at the best of times because normally I’d say the steps are so basic that this document need not exist because it would be impossible to have the level of competence necessary to operate the software without also possessing the necessary competence for basic install but, but astonishingly those instructions are WRONG!
The frustrating thing is that the videos broken up by topic aren’t a bad idea at all, IN ADDITION to a real manual but as a replacement!? I was so pissed.
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.