Oh we've realized it. We just don't seem to care enough to do anything about it. If we did try to do anything we would just end up getting arrested for being a terrorist.
I think we, the more informed individuals, have realized it. IMO there is a large chunk of the American population that either doesn't care, doesn't know or actually thinks this is in their best interest.
A few voices on the internet don't have any leverage vs a whole silence country.
I'm hoping that once the 25ish-year-olds run for Congress we'll see a shift.
Don't hold your breath. I don't think it's an age thing. I felt like you do when I was in high-school, and/or in college... now "my generation" is well into the range where people my are are serving in Congress and other government positions, and it's still business as usual.
There just seem to be certain types of people, regardless of age, who are drawn to becoming part of the State and who are good at getting elected. And every generation churns out its measure of assholes.
I agree with this. I don't expect there to be much change in the US for another 30 years, unfortunately. Hopefully by then the technology to transplant my brain into a newer, fresher body is available. That way I can enjoy a truly free America, hopefully one that focuses on science and engineering rather than whatever the hell the focus of it is now. War? World domination?
In a continental Europe-style multiparty system, it would probably be possible for some 5% or 10% minority party to position against the current government and rise to above 30% in about a decade, thus rising to power. For example Fidesz in Hungary grew from 7% in 1994 to 53% in 2010 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidesz ).
In the more stable US two-party system, you may need to resort to somewhat older methods, which are still widely used around the world even in present days:
One would have thought that the use of soldiers to enforce domestic laws would have given that away. Unfortunately most Americans believe Hollywood's version of reality, which is that those soldiers are needed to fight armies of criminals and that those soldiers never threaten, injure, or kill innocent people.
The Westwinster system has some distinct advantages. All leaders of the executive branch are directly answerable to the electorate. The Head of State is a figurehead whose absolute surety of office means she needn't be a political figure and so some parts of the machinery of government are more trustworthy. The fusion of legislature and executive means that the executive must be exposed to the view of Parliament at all times. The fusion also means that governments usually form quickly and so can govern with some confidence of expeditiousness (vs endless hearings), while bicameralism provides an inbuilt mechanism of resistance and review.
Meanwhile, Americans think the President is some kind of God-king. The powers a President has are granted by Congress, the money is voted by Congress. The President has enormous day to day influence and power, and could at an order destroy billions of lives. Yet the President has no guarantee of a workable Congress and Congress has no incentive to work with a President.
The only thing that can cause the Washington system to act collectively is some terrifying outside threat, and all they will ever agree on is the kind of madness that's led us to this pass.
So, actually? The Westminster system is pretty damn good, constitution or not. Americans think they're badasses for having a revolution. One. And a civil war. One.
Britain's constitutional system is more thoroughly underpinned by blood and terror and war and suffering than the USA's. By a long shot.
