Hi doma,
I've been talking about US constitutional failure for years here. It manifests in one form as influence peddling.
But I am not moving towards your world cabal theory. I don't see conspiracies. I see plutocracy - so a smaller group of folks (rather than a full democratic set) get to dictate policy. But that is not to say that they all agree with one another. Various groups and individuals out there with competing interests. Wall Street doesn't always want what Main Street wants. Hollywood doesn't want the same things as Silicon Valley.
But the voice of the people? Reduced to murmurings.
My hypothesis is that the deliberate design of the document to be sceptical of new ideas in favour of the tried and true (essentially a Burkean conservative ideal) has some serious negative effects (alongside some positive ones). It certainly makes change difficult, whereas nature tends to suggest that adaptation to circumstances is a critical and (in sum) a benevolent force. So the US system finds it very difficult to overcome entrenched philosophies and must end up with its lebensraum style expansion (at the expense of native Americans) and its civil wars (to end slavery) and its Depressions (because in the US individualism seems to have a trump power over regulation). Change can be violent or it can be continuous. The US model makes the former more likely.
This resistance to gradual adaptation also encourages incumbents to use the system to pursue their own interests and reduce the opportunities for competitive innovation within established industries.
I didn't know about the flag, but I don't see the US as operating in anyone's interest but its own.
I agree with you that the sort of people who have the ambition to lead a country are usually just the sort you don't want to lead a country.
| 
