Because government's only tool is the use of force, it will always suck for whoever disagrees with the present regime in any given time and place. This is not a politically-biased value judgement, just a simple, irrefutable statement of fact.

The only way to minimize the net suckage is to minimize the power we give our government. Notice that I didn't say "eliminate it" or "drown it in the bathtub" or anything like that -- just constrain it within Constitutional boundaries.

Neither of the two major parties is even remotely interested in permitting that to happen. So, yes: they both suck.

One party is portrayed as increasing the scope and power of government while the other advocates for smaller, but we know that this is absolutely not true in terms of government spending and headcount. There is no party that has advocated explicitly for more government for no reason. The issue is around what we as a society consider a minimum viable government and how we can go back after a new agency had been created. It just sounds like rotting code and a bunch of microservices written by different generations of teams instead of just a single team picking a vision and sticking with it. In my view, going back and forth from one ideology to another as different parties rotate has resulted in an effective system that has the worst of both liberal and conservative ideologies implemented.