The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Dale Richardson of Hampden works full time from home investing in the public equities market.
Sen. Susan Collins is running for a sixth term in the U.S. Senate, and Maine voters should weigh her long record against the demands of this moment. She has represented the state ably in some respects over many years.
But in President Donald Trump’s second term, I think the question is no longer whether she can point to past accomplishments. I believe it is whether she is willing to provide the independent judgment and political courage this moment requires from a Republican senator.
On that test, I believe she has too often fallen short. Her vote to confirm Brett Kavanaugh was an early and consequential example. Collins argued that he would respect precedent, yet his confirmation helped create the Supreme Court majority that overturned Roe v. Wade. I believe that vote was not just a political miscalculation; it was a warning about her willingness to extend trust where scrutiny was needed most.
The same pattern has appeared in her response to Trump’s nominees. Collins did vote against Pete Hegseth for secretary of defense and Kash Patel for FBI director, decisions that reflected legitimate concerns about fitness and judgment. But those exceptions only underscore the larger problem: She has not consistently used the Senate’s constitutional duty of advice and consent as a meaningful check on presidential power.
A senator’s job is not to defer to a president’s preferences out of party loyalty or institutional habit. It is to evaluate whether nominees are qualified, independent, and worthy of the public trust.
That broader failure I see matters because the country is not living through ordinary politics. Trump’s return to power has accelerated efforts to weaken long-standing democratic guardrails and to concentrate more authority in fewer hands. Project 2025, developed by the Heritage Foundation and its allies, made much of that ambition plain by laying out an aggressive blueprint for reshaping the federal government.
In this environment, I believe cautious rhetoric and selective independence are not enough. I think Collins has too often chosen accommodation over resistance, and that choice has consequences far beyond Maine.
If she wants to shape her legacy differently, I think she should look to the example of Margaret Chase Smith, who on June 1, 1950, confronted the demagoguery of Joseph McCarthy from the Senate floor. Smith understood that there are moments when silence, caution, and half-measures become their own form of surrender. Collins still has time to decide what kind of senator history will remember her to have been.
Maine voters should recognize what is at stake. Republicans hold narrow margins in Congress, and even a small number of senators willing to defend institutional limits can matter enormously. If Collins is unwilling to meet that standard, then I believe voters should choose someone who will.
She could still take what I consider a more honorable course, either by acting with the clarity and courage the office now demands or by deciding not to seek another term. But if she does remain in the race, I urge voters to judge her not by the image she cultivated in easier years, but by the record she has made in this far more dangerous one.
I do not expect Collins to choose either course. That leaves the task to voters, who should use their ballots and their voices to bring about the change this moment requires.