It's fairly clear from historical evidence that the USA has always been to a great extent a plutocracy, and has always been deeply corrupt. The difference between Italy and the USA is merely the degree to which ordinary people fail to grasp reality. Italians know the mafia and the rich run Italy; US citizens live in a mental Disneyland and have little or no comprehension of the reality of the situation.

The question is: would being a more functional democracy actually be an improvement? Given that democracy is nothing more than populism with good PR, and given that populism always leads to catastrophe in the end, it's clear that the real problem arises from the mismatch of systems of governance with real-world requirements. Until we stop fetishizing democracy and instead look to engineer systems that are more fit for purpose - and resistant to being gamed - we will simply continue to slide into the populist mire and our civilization will reach its inevitable conclusion in tyranny. If the problem were uniquely experienced by the USA one could argue the case made in this essay but when one takes the trouble to look elsewhere in the OECD one sees that surface variations matter far less than fundamental similarities. Representative democracy has everywhere delivered atrocious outcomes because most people are ignorant, foolish, and easily swayed by mindless soundbites. They thus vote for incompetent cynics promoting policies that inevitably result in terrible outcomes, which in turn cause ordinary people to look for a "strong leader" to save them from the results of their own follies. The USA is far from unique and will not decay and die alone.