That said, yes, you might see a fall out of government not working. But rebuilding a welfare state will take generations. If you don't fix the political system this will fail too.
> Usually you judge whether something is broken when it fails to meet your expectations
Most Americans I talk to say that they want their government to help people who needs help: mentally ill, uninsured people with medical conditions.
Even conservative Americans agrees that people in need should be helped. How else would you call yourself a Christian.
Nevertheless, I see people in desparate need of help on American streets every day. Are you saying this is a new thing, and that it haven't been broken for 20-30 years?
How do you measure it cross-culturally? It’s a farce metric that’s used by politicians because they can make it bend however they want. Ecuador is happy too, maybe we should be more like them? If Zimbabwe was happy would that be evidence we need to be more like Zimbabwe?
http://worldhappiness.report/ed/2017/
If people only care about politics when the system is broken, why do 80-90% vote in elections.
My point is that people don't vote because the system is broken. People are more likely to vote if they believe it to make a difference.
People in the US have lost faith in democracy. This is unlikely to cause more people to vote. I'm not offering a solution. Just that things are not magically going to become better because people are going to start voting when things are this bad.
As a scenario and extension to your theory, what if the period of people largely not caring results in an entirely different class of politician being more successful, where partisanship and political maneuvering are more useful than actually achieving useful change? When "stuff breaks down and people start caring again", what if those politicians aren't up to the job of actually fixing what's breaking?
I'm not sure that necessarily explains our current status, but it is a morbid line of thought.