And that's not a dems/pubs critcism
When I read what you wrote, it brings to mind an FDR view vs. a Regan view. Both were a result of having a democratic system. Each had differing political systems applied at different times.
What needs to be changed? Having a democratic system? Or a particular political system? I think it's the latter. At bottom, the riot was about the former.
to answer the bolded part...i guess the answer to that is also what is so frustrating...what needs to change is a bunch of rules/policies would have to be undone but they were put there by people who want to make sure things stay the way they are, so ultimately its a moot point b/c its so unrealistic. But for the sake of argument, a good start would be things like lobbies. To make a very specific example, i'll mention the gun lobby. I find it interesting that the vast majority of pro-gun folks have no objections whatsoever to the restrictions proposed by the stricter gun control folks, so you have like 90+% of the people in agreement on a path foward, but it goes nowhere because a powerful gun lobby is making sure that it goes nowhere.
That's just one example, but i'd say a very glaring example of the overwhelming will of the people is not being represented because of a small select few that it would work counter to their interest. A democratic system in theory is completely fine, but once it becomes for sale it is no longer democratic. I think it would be great if elected senators/congresspersons were required to vote based on the will of their constituents, but when you have to spend the vast majority of your time fundraising (speaking specifically of congresspersons) instead of lawmaking you will undoubedly be obliged to the will of your biggest donor(s).
I guess another example would be whatever form of late-stage capitalism we seem to have here. Everyone is so afraid that we're going to turn into a communist nation anytime something threatens capitalism but like...is that what we have? I'm no economic philosopher but I thought one of the mainstays of capitalism was that the free market would drive competition, which would benefit the consumer either through lower prices or innovation to create a superior product. Do we have that? Does insulin need to cost $1000? And if so, why are people able to get it for $10 in Canada? If all the companies agree to stifle innovation or competition (which they do) then the consumer is effed. Its the reason there is virtually no way that you can get the TV channels you want for less than you were paying before all the streaming services started. True capitalism would mean one of these cable companies would offer what the people really want...an actual choice of channels at a fair price, but as long as they all agree not to then they can just keep finding new ways to make sure the consumer is paying just as much, if not more, than they were before to get the same goods and services. If amazon offers a product but then another company comes along that offers the same product at a lower cost or a better version of that product, amazon can just lower their prices and take a (very small) hit for a while in order to run the other guy out of business and then acquire that company when they have no position but to sell, and once they do the price will go back up to what it was.
But how do you take on amazon? you cant. there is too much already in place to ensure that amazon will win and there is nothing anybody can do about it.
