> I have zero confidence that today we'd have public education, social security, or freedom from religion. > You simply don't like that most people are content

> I have zero confidence that today we'd have public education, social security, or freedom from religion. > You simply don't like that most people are content with the system we have. I think perhaps these statements are contradictory, and I think it’s because the second statement is false. I don’t think people in the US are generally content with the status quo whatsoever, but I do think that it is both actually hopeless and also perceived widely as hopeless that we have any chance of effecting meaningful change to it. This is by design, so that those who do benefit from the status quo can make claims about representation similar to yours above, when no such representation exists. It’s a sort of “shut up and go away” to keep the existing socioeconomic order in place. If we were actually represented in the way you posit, there would be candidates whose platform would primarily be the repeal of old laws that are invalid, unnecessary, or harmful. We see no such candidates, and we see no such trends.