However, it is money. There are two parties, cosmetically different with a stranglehold to where they and their hangers-on extract massive money amounts from donors with an agenda to contribute as a lesser cost than having their affairs fairly governed.
The donors own. The lobbyists give the marching orders.
Who is big in the nation's shadow government. Try this.
There are good people, just not a majority of them in either party.
There is much posing. Expensive suits. That shit.
Basically, money has a stranglehold. Money talks. Corporate "persons" have money just as green as other real human people's fortunes, and hence deserve equal play in the game. Citizens United makes that clear.
There are interstitial nuances, but that seems to summarize the big picture. Why DC insiders have single digit popular approvals. Nationwide.
Elon Musk buys Twitter, Jeff Bezos already owns WaPo. Freedom of speech - yea!
Elon and Jeff, however, are heard, differentiating them from you and your free speech atop a soapbox.
Have a nice invented holiday, Juneteenth.
___________UPDATE___________
Playing the devil's advocate, or giving fair attention to an opposite view, call it either:
The rebellions of 1848 failed. Cause of failure can be argued, the people vs the police, political power coming from the muzzle of a gun, and the existing aristocratic and/or capitalist state had the guns.
The Soviet Union won the Second World War. We got in late. France fell in days. Britain was not seriously challenged, and had sea power. But, a "Marxist" state defeated the Aryan vigor of the axis. Yes, the Soviets were supplied by U.S. goods where the U.S. had no threat to its industrial power, and gained.
The Soviet "Marxist" experiment had its elite. The difference, an absolute elite, with private property not existing as a buffer against full elite domination. Either in the party or out, unlike China, with its mixed economy but party dominance as a ruling elite. Both China and the Soviets tended to have a narrower elite than under capitalist nations, and the U.S. has chief executive term limits, if not elsewhere.
Having bankers running the economy, is it not better, if you are having a capitalist system to engineer it for stable growth and to smooth normal cycling of such a system? They know what they are doing. Carpenters and pipe fitters are skilled, they build plumb housing, and then plumb it. But they have not studied economic theory nor have they experience in lending to advance home building and housing purchases. Bankers always are answerable to legislative committee hearings and other constraints, such as shareholder pressures against too much looting by bank executives, and against unsound bank management.
Who best to run a national economy than economic experts working with political elites, where both such classes offer stable continuity rather than chaos.
And, white supremacy? Both "World Wars" were basically European as to antagonists and main battle turf. Yes, we won the Pacific War by Island hopping and by being the only nation to nuke another nation in warfare.
But, with nuclear weapon power multiplied from the two prototype bombs used against the Japanese homeland, nuclear war could extinguish the species, if widespread enough. And white nations colonized non-white, from before Columbus, but surely onward to where, "The sun never sets on the British Empire, and Britain controlled key sea commerce points; the Falklands, Singapore, Gigraltur, Suez, the African Cape, with intrusion onto the Chinese coast (e.g., Hong Kong).
And colonization was with a heavy hand. Read Conrad's Heart of Darkness. Review the history of the Raj, how Britain managed the Indian subcontinent.
Recall the Reformation. Much death between Catholics and non-Catholics, and there was the Inquisition where Jews and Muslims were forced out of Spain with much torture and force.
In effect, when running things, white people really did not do a very good job of it, certainly not humane in their dealings. Perhaps they earned "Replacement." That question surely is within the bounds of rational analysis; and treating blacks as property to where whites held title to humans, and traded them at will.
Not good. Now in the wealthiest nation history has known, what policy is best for world peace? Long term. With nuclear war to be avoided for the good of all humanity? HInt, a vision by one elected to enact sound policies, a white Catholic, who got shot to death, by other white people months after sharing that vision. Lone gunman or whatever. And the Church hearings clearly identified how our Deep State had assassinated other heads of State when their politics collided with some deep state peoples' likes and dislikes. We bombed Asians, killed Muslims, and in general have been questionable world citizens with armies garrisoned worldwide. Keeping the peace much as the Pax Romana was instituted and maintained.
So, is our national heritage to be honestly considered, or mythologized?
Might our populace, individually and in totol, take less of the world's riches so that other equally human persons with equal hopes and dreams, worldwide and on the whole do better? Isn't that fair? Is the American Dream unfairness toward all others?
There are two competing outlooks, and perhaps our Deep State has merits, as well as vexations. Think it all over.