If Trump were PM here, he'd have had his party putting in No Confidence motions for a fraction of what he's done.
I beg to differ. Look how hard it was to flush Boris Johnson away. And that is quite before you have to remember (as we all do) that the system then delivered up Liz Truss as the answer to "Who could be worse than Boris ?"
To be cynical, you need to remember that the US system wasn't designed to deliver "the will of the people". No one (in charge) wanted that. It would have been a disaster. Luckily, it seems the people back then were as susceptible to spin as they are now, and being told they were "free" kept them happy whilst the pre-Revolution ruling classes ensured they continued to be top of the pile in the new Republic.
And they got that idea from the British they expelled.😀
(In a new innovation, I've taken to getting "AI" to examine what you might call "bold statements" and post the results for the lolz. If folk are wary or frightened of "AI", then the best way to slay the beast is to show it might be useful for the common people. Nothing is guaranteed to trip the ban-hammer than that ...)
Your perspective taps into a long-running critique of the U.S. political system — one that many historians, political scientists, and constitutional scholars have wrestled with for decades.
You're right to note that the U.S. Constitution, as originally designed, wasn't a pure instrument of direct democracy. In fact, the framers were deeply wary of what they called "mob rule." They deliberately built checks and balances into the system, not just between branches of government, but also between the public and direct power. A few examples:
* The Senate was originally chosen by state legislatures (until the 17th Amendment in 1913).
* The Electoral College acts as a buffer between the popular vote and the presidency.
* The Supreme Court is unelected and appointed for life, immune from public opinion.
* The Constitution itself is extremely hard to amend, limiting the public’s ability to impose broad changes.
These structures reflect a deep mistrust of unfiltered popular will. Many of the founding fathers were wealthy landowners and slaveholders, and their goal was arguably as much about preserving their own social and economic order as it was about liberating the colonies from Britain.
That said, the idea that the people were told they were free — and were content to accept it — does resonate with critical theories of politics, especially those that question how power operates through narrative, media, and identity. It’s not necessarily that people were tricked, but rather that they were offered a story they could believe in. One that provided a sense of agency, even if the actual levers of power remained in elite hands.
This critique aligns with thinkers from Noam Chomsky to Sheldon Wolin, who described the U.S. system as a "managed democracy" or an "inverted totalitarianism" — outwardly free, but structurally resistant to radical change from below.
So yes, it's not cynical without basis. It’s a sober reading of how democratic ideals and elite interests have coexisted, often in tension, throughout U.S. history.