That's a bit of a point towards what libertarians and conservatives (but, to be clear, not alt-righters) think. If fewer issues were national and more were left up to individuals, even, you wouldn't have to lament what the national government does. You could move to a more sane place. And your opinion would matter more in a smaller jurisdiction.
Interestingly, we're seeing this symptom happening more in tech companies, which are not the government but they certainly govern in some respects, at least the things they are responsible for. There is starting to be appetite in conservative and libertarian circles for discussion about what to do about unelected corporate bureaucracies having this sort of power.
There IS a difference between the political parties.
All you have to do is look at their voting records on key issue. Here's a comprehensive breakdown, for proof:
https://np.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6pc5qu/democrats...
Neither party ever even tried to do anything about:
- term limits, limits on money in politics
- getting rid of lobbyists (their own sponsors)
- punishing Wall Street criminals
- reforming business law to give shareholders more control over executive compensation
- stopping the runaway train of national debt - etc.
Both parties were/are mostly:
- anti-privacy (anti-Snowden, anti-Wikileaks, etc)
- pro-war, the military budget is untouchable, whether it is McCain or Hillary
- ever-increasing spending (despite Reps rhetoric)
- happy (Dems) or uninterested (Reps) in lowering healthcare costs
- corrupt, with "foundations" and "speaking fees" flowing freely
There is much more, but this thread is off-topic, so I will stop here.
Term limits are a horrible non-solution, but Republicans did push a Constitutional Amendment for them them on Congress in 1995, securing a majority but not the supermajority required for a Constitutional Amendment.
> limits on money in politics
Bipartisan finance reform has passed several times, only for the most significant measures to be struck down by the courts.
A number of your other points are similarly ill-informed.
both parties are corporatist, neoliberal, military-interventionist, and in general anti-democratic in that they are very happy to allow wealthy interests to set policy without deferring much to the will of the people.
Unfortunately, it will take years (if ever) for most people to realize this.
Both myself and my other housemates didn't understand it at the time, but I didn't lose respect for him as a person. In the most recent election, I've come to at least understand more of his views. I wish I could talk to him about it, but he passed away a few years ago.
I currently hold a controversial opinion myself, that the parties are essentially the same and the elections simply do not matter. I do not think anything would be different under either potential candidate. You can say some of the social issues would be affected (trans people in the military), but if you focus on those, you view the current government as just stupid. But they're not. They knew banning trans people would cause outrage. You add a stupid reason, and you need to realize they knew that was an intentionally stupid reason, and people focus their hate. It is literally the 2 minute hate from Orwell's 1984, except it's been around for over a decade and it's now the 24/7 hate from all the news networks.
http://fightthefuture.org/articles/the-fallout-of-american-a...
In big tech areas, I cannot get over the number of people who would say, "No there is a difference [between the parties]!" whenever I expressed this view. Over 60 million people voted for Trump. That doesn't mean those 60+ million are uneducated or stupid or racist. Over 60 million people voted for Clinton. That doesn't mean those 60+ million are compromising or ignorant. Over 40% of those eligible chose not to vote. They all get clumped together, even though their reasons are greatly varied.
And keep in mind, there is a 2014 Princeton Study that shows the the opinions of the average voter in America have a statically insignificant, near zero, effect on all policy decisions (unless you're part of the top 10% of income earners):
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi...
America, and even many European nations, are becoming increasingly polarized. But human beings don't fit into two categories. There is no real left or right. Someone might be supportive of gay rights, be for gun control and yet still think trans people suffer from mental illness. Another might be against gun control and affirmative action, and have other libertarian-ish beliefs, yet believe strongly in public transportation and universal health care.
We do not fit into the nice cylinders of political categories, and we certainly don't fit into the false dichotomy of the left/right. But we're taught that's where the line is, that we have to take sides, and keep fighting each other instead of the real players, the _eminence grise_ of Exxon, BP, Microsoft, Facebook, Google, Boeing and all the other players who really control what's going on and who are systematically implementing policy that increases tension, increases conflict and escalates war throughout the would.