Hi D&O,
Well, first step is to understand that there's a problem.
Both sides do. But they also have incumbent interests.
So you take the time necessary to figure how to make the change occur. First thing to know is that this is going to require patience.
It's much like the slavery question. The US doesn't find it easy under its constitution to evolve away from the monied status quo. And so the pot boils for longer. And the resolution to these kinds of problems becomes uglier in the end. There's always some layer of government or the court system to frustrate constructive change.
The English system permitted slavery to flourish, but - critically - also found a peaceful means to end it - in spite of the existence of exactly the same kind of investment in an immoral system. The establishment of both parties wanted to keep it for commercial reasons. Yet finally, it was abolished via an act of parliament.
I think this is a similar kind of problem, with an embedded status quo fighting for its piece of the pie. The established parties both gain some benefit from keeping things as they are.
Time will come when American demand their democracy back from the money people. The choice is between peaceful change, or something worse. The question is whether the people with money are smart enough to realise that in the end frustrating democratic change will not work.
| 