This is the classic "Manufacturing Consent" narrative/conspiracy theory, at least when "engaging" implies (sometimes) "pays". You may not mean it that way, but

This is the classic "Manufacturing Consent" narrative/conspiracy theory, at least when "engaging" implies (sometimes) "pays". You may not mean it that way, but rather "talks to/adjusts its messaging". In that sense, it's quite obviously true, but just... not quite as sinister? Some people have more influence because they people have come to enjoy, trust, or otherwise seek it. Sometimes, this dynamic is formalized by putting them into position with in-built distribution advantages, such as TV personality or editorial writer. There is nothing wrong with that. "Opinion-having" is a skill like any other, and it would be strange to make it the one category where quality does not lead to more widespread consumption. The US is also divided in a way not seen for generations. I don't quite see how one can look at the state of politics today and complain about a lack of choices, or imply that "they are all the same". If there is some cabal of mighty though-leaders, they certainly failed quite spectacular in 2016, when the Republican establishment was opposed to the current president at least as much as the Democratic party. Indeed, you acknowledge the possibility that opinion-makers aren't on-board for rather mundane, individual reasons with the reference to "more democratic countries". I posit that even in the US, a majority does, in principle, support "the system". The left-wing critics of capitalism I know would be perfectly happy with something like the "Nordic Model" of social democracy, which is a set of policies entirely consistent with the current political structure of the US.