One morning four weeks ago, we woke up to the news that the U.S. is leading a major war in the ever-tumultuous Middle East — one that poses many risks and may prove to be the most far-reaching and impactful conflict of this century.

As expected, there has been a blizzard of concern from all quarters. Much of it is the reflexive opposition to all actions taken by President Donald Trump, but some is not. Many criticize the president for not adequately engaging the public in his decision-making on such a weighty matter, either by laying out his thinking in advance — i.e., convening a national conversation of sorts with the public at large — or by seeking prior authorization or counsel from Congress.

It’s a fair question, particularly for a nation that prides itself on having a government that is “of the people, by the people, and for the people” (as described by Abraham Lincoln). Shouldn’t we have had a say in the matter?

The answer, I think, is fairly clear. Neither the current state of our American culture nor the current modus operandi of Congress leaves any room for timely, constructive, apolitical deliberation on controversial issues.

There have been few presidents (maybe none) who communicate with the public more openly and fully than Donald Trump. But the hard reality is that we Americans don’t have “national conversations.” We have national food fights — fierce arguments between two entrenched sides, each defending their pre-ordained positions with pre-packaged talking points. Although we often claim that we need a leader who can “pull us together,” that implies that we actually want to be pulled together. Evidently, we’d prefer to just keep arguing.

For the president to get some meaningful help from Congress — the “advice and consent” prescribed by the Constitution — on a decision as difficult as this one is an even less likely prospect. And that notion provokes a more fundamental question: Is our Democratic Republic working as our Founders intended? Is it standing up to the test of time?

Based on two-and-a-half centuries of success, I’d have to answer that question with an emphatic “yes!” But taking a closer look, there are some definite rough spots.

Our Founders codified a three-branch structure of government intended to produce a sensible mix of democracy and practicality. I’d argue that of those three, the executive and the judicial branches perform largely as intended. Despite the popular blather about “No Kings,” our presidents — from George Washington to Donald Trump — have provided essential executive leadership, while the judiciary manages to keep them in their constitutionally assigned lane.

It’s never been easy — there’s always controversy and room for disagreement — but by and large we’re doing OK in those two arenas. And for those who nonsensically liken our current president and his administration to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime, I’d suggest you take a much closer look at the well-recorded history of that very dark period.

The dysfunctional part of government, in my view, is the legislative branch — interestingly, the one intended to be the most “representative” (i.e., democratic) of the three. Congress is often described as a deliberative body (and members sure talk a lot) — but when it comes to legislative actions, Congress is not deliberative at all; it’s a nose-counting body. Nearly every senator and representative has a “D” or an “R” next to his or her name (the exception being the few who self-identify as Independents). And on nearly every legislative action that comes to a vote, the Ds vote Democrat and the Rs vote Republican, with little regard for what their constituents truly want.

Making matters worse, the elected representation in Congress is, in many cases, not “representative” at all. In many states, redistricting (i.e., gerrymandering) has drastically undermined the political alignment between constituencies and their elected representatives.

As examples: Republicans residing in the six states comprising New England currently have zero representation in the House of Representatives; there are no Republican members from those states. And if, as expected, the current redistricting initiative in the “purple” (evenly split red and blue) Virginia succeeds, that state will field 10 Democrat House members and just one Republican. And Democrats aren’t the only offenders; Republicans have had comparable gerrymandering success in several states, producing disproportionate Republican representation.

The net effect of this political manipulation is that legislative action by the elected senators and representatives in Congress often bears little resemblance to the consensus views of the citizens they represent. The SAVE Act, supported by nearly all Republicans and about 70% of Democrats, is likely to die in the Senate because Democrats consider the political advantage of shooting down the supposed “Jim Crow 2.0” is more valuable than improving election integrity, as desired by the majority of voters.

For the all-time record in congressional outrage, look no further than the Senate Democrats’ steadfast (five times in as many weeks) refusal to provide funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), at a time (right now) of the greatest security threat to our country since that department was created. The risk posed to the American public is enormous and unnecessary. It’s disgraceful.

Fixing our polarized, unrepresentative Congress will be a steep hill to climb. But I’d propose two steps that might nudge us in the right direction:

1.) Reopen consideration of term limits for both senators and House members. Without question, elected representatives who are safely ensconced in multi-decade “safe” seats tend to lose sight of what their constituents really want. Obviously, few of those will be very enthused about altering the system in a way that kicks them out of their cushy jobs — but that decision should be up to the electorate, not them. Let’s get it back on the table.

2.) Actively encourage voters (beginning with this year’s primaries and midterm elections) to never again cast a vote for any member of Congress, regardless of party, who voted against funding of DHS in this time of clearly high risk. Such an initiative would require organization and communication, but it strikes me as deserving of higher consideration than any other factor on the table. Voting not to protect American citizens from likely terrorist action (such as the four such instances in the past two weeks) should be disqualifying for public office. By definition.

Bottom lines: In my view, our president’s decision to proceed with military action against Iran was prudent and timely. Securing prior support from Congress would have boosted public confidence in his decision, but it would have been effectively impossible to obtain. And going forward, if we want Congress to be more constructively engaged in both participating in executive decision-making and properly representing the citizenry, we’ve got work to do to refresh its MO.

In the interim, I for one am thankful that we have a leader who has the courage to take us where we need to go, rather than one who puts his finger up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.