There is a term for people like Ajit Pai taking leading roles and it is corporate capture. This has been happening to other government agencies and it is a real risk to a democracy. These people have a single goal and that is to serve corporate interests. We have seen this happen in several agencies under the current administration.

Regulatory capture is the term I usually see used for this.

What's the term?

from parent comment: "corporate capture"

The problem with these rules made by executive fiat is that the next admin can just reverse them. And that cuts both ways.

The only way to get real change these days is having Congress and the President be the same party, which really is a shame.

Not sure if even that's a real change. Since a new party president with their congress can change the law again. The only way to do this correctly is with bi-partisan support which seems to be lacking on more and more issues these days.

This is true. But bi-partisanship appears to be dead now. So the closest we have is a trifecta government passing something and then hoping there is a long enough time until the opposing party gets a trifecta so that the change sticks.

Look at the ACA. It's been around long enough now that so far most attempts by the other party have failed to overturn it. But you're right, it's still under attack. So we shall see.

Laws that give out free stuff are especially sticky.

I don't think it's a bad thing that the will of the voters can lead to changes in law.

I don't think that's what is being claimed to be the issue there. More that the minority party will often resist, challenge, filibuster legislation, even if it is for the good of the country, for no other reason than "we are the opposition". There are many things that might be objected to on philosophical grounds, but during Obama's term, McConnell literally was quoted as saying his goal was for Obama to be unable to pass any legislation, regardless of the good it would do.

Case in point: Senate Democrats learned this the hard way with the filibuster. However, I contend that even when there is total unity in the government, real change does not happen. For example, when the republicans held all three we did not see overturning of Roe v. Wade, or any of the doomsday scenarios we were promised. The most that happened under democrat three rule was a deeply flawed health insurance disaster.

It can't happen soon enough, but we need better laws, so that not so much is left up to the whims of political appointees.

Great. Hopefully the anti-encryption William Barr will be right behind Ajit.

Why does a US President have so much power in seemingly appointing incompetent political hacks or party donors to all sorts of important roles ???.

In most cases a country has a professional civil service where political hackery are kept to a minimum and policy making is decided by the ministers and it all filters down.

What other countries are you talking about? In most countries, ministers are appointed by the Prime Minister or Chancellor. The head of the Canadian telecom regulator is appointed by the Prime Minister. Same thing for Germany.

See, that was actually everyone below the appointee level. Appointees typically get swapped out at every election, but everyone below them is typically tasked with continuity of governance with the appointee providing mainly direction.