Read other letters about this article
You said it, my friend.
Altho I think a certain man said it earlier, and shorter, thusly:
"A little revolution now and again is a good thing".
Lots of people argue that the comment "a republic, if you can keep it" indicates where things began to go wrong. Others pluck for Lincoln's starting a war to preserve a form of government (a telling point) ... but the truth is far more mundane, and was noted well by Lord Acton when he said "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
ALL governments, no matter what their structure, underlying ethos, or intentions, begin to go wrong from the first day of their existence - and the ratchet effect usually ensures that the trend is consistently negative thereafter.
This does not mean that there isn't relative advantage in one particular structure over another, or one particular ethos or set of intentions or philosophical moorings over another. What it means is that all governments need to be reformed FROM OUTSIDE. They never, ever, voluntarily reform themselves. The one truth that both education and political mythology are designed to conceal is that "there is no government without the consent of the governed". Thus, the idea is propagated that electing the right people will fix things, when what is necessary for government reform is the withdrawal of your consent to being governed by criminals.
As of today, there is no sign of any significant body of people in the western world (in or out of the USA) willing to withdraw their consent.
Hence, reform has not happened, is not happening, and will not happen until such time as this body of people steps forward in unambiguous terms.
If any here think that simply prosecuting a few more criminals will enact such reform, then they are simply not paying attention (even tho i tend to agree that would be a good thing in its own right).
All the above, in my humble opinion, naturally.