Earlier quoted context omitted.
I completely agree, so please take this as an explanation and elucidation rather than a criticism: The concept of merely "demanding change" is unlikely to result in change, unless the term "demanding" includes actions that would result in significant disruption of economics and daily life (in which case that is an entirely different discussion). The core piece in dampening a desire for change, in my thinking anyway,…
I completely agree... It has almost become impossible to 'demand change' from within the system, unless off course the change is within the acceptable norms.
The economy and state security are both suffering from a hugely captured Congress. The flip side is that regaining control of our legislators would mean solving myriad problems at once. Or at least, starting to address them in ways that make sense to and for the people.
Breaking this hold isn't a one shot deal. Rather, it requires dismantling four interlocking institutions which have, in combination, the toxic effect we're becoming acutely aware of.
Specifically, we need to open closed primaries, end partisan redistricting, switch from private campaign finance to public, and brick up the revolving door between the public and private sectors by placing a lifetime hellban on future employment of public officials by any private interest they've overseen.
Obviously, these reforms will make a stint in public office far less lucrative than it is right now, so there is a zero percent chance that Congress will initiate them freely. That means support for these reforms must become the primary condition for winning elected office in the first place.
I have no idea how to get a critical mass of Americans to single-mindedly enforce this condition. But I can't think of any other way for them to recover an essential measure of control over Congress. So that's the problem in a nutshell.