That difference is the whole point. It could be argued that Vitalik has enough political clout in the community now to do nearly whatever he wants, but that only goes so far as whatever he's proposing is agreeable upon a consensus.
If the miners disagree, then it's a no go because they make it work. If the larger userbase disagrees, then the miners will be bent to disagree because there won't be any money in it if everyone sells off. It's shortsighted to think that because there are influential parties the whole system is broken. (hint: functioning democracies work this way. As far as most people can tell so far, it's a good thing)
I also agree with the rest of your positions here. To wit: while governments are hesitant and slow to get directly involved, they _are_ doing active research[0][1] into how/why/when it will be valuable to use existing blockchains or for what reason they could employ new ones. So are many banks. The distributed ledger seems to hold inherent value for everybody.
[0] Being from Canada, I know more about the goings here than elsewhere. The article has a rather negative tone, but the point being they are experimenting and recognize the need to keep up technologically, and the need to improve upon current systems. They are speaking more directly to virtual currencies here. -- https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/bank-of-c...
[1] Fintech and Financial Services: Initial Considerations - IMF -- http://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/SDN/2017/sdn17...
A lot of people feel like Bitcoin etc. are Stick-it-to-the-man endeavors. In the long term I think they will be disappointed.
I think the real benefit of this sort of decentralization would be if multiple governments took an active part in its operation. America could propose something but it wouldn't take effect if they can't convince the mining majority of China,Russia,France,Australia,Nigeria and India. No one entity can unilaterally make a decision for their own benefit.