Hardly. What I'm describing is a dynamics problem. Right now we are at one equilibrium point due to various factors, many of them related to the particular nature of the popular media today. However, there are other equilibrium points (many of them more desirable) which are within our reach if certain changes happen.
The media reflects human desire. Elections are a scandal-driven celebrity-driven mess because that's what people watch. This is not unique to our time in human history either. But, like all things these days, media so much more efficient, centralized, and responsive.
That's a simplistic way of looking at it, and it's not entirely untrue, but it's also not the whole truth. The media represents a reflection of human desire filtered and lensed through the particular business models and technological limitations that reign. And the distortion that has been caused by those things, especially ad driven broadcast media, has had a huge impact. I don't excuse the electorate their responsibility in this either but the impact that the media has had on the process has been enormous and in most ways largely negative, especially over the last half century or so. As technology changes, as business models change, as expectations change we may see some big differences in the interface between candidate campgaigns and the electorate but it's too soon to tell how all that will shake out and whether it will lead to an improvement or worsening in matters.
