Basically it blames the New Deal and the massive expansion of Congressional ambition that accompanied it. Such vast programs of regulation meant it became infeasible for Congress to write the laws entirely by itself, so it created lots of regulators and agencies to do so for it, and then delegated lots of power without much in the way of accountability.
I'm optimistic that there are technological solutions for this particular crisis, although I admit I don't know what they will be.
I have never met a "disinterested academic". To the contrary, most academics are quite interested and many are enthusiastic about their area of study.
Many are also involved in outreach, to get others interested in their research topic. This includes researchers who write and sell books meant for the general public, and, yes, to affect policy.
We have a republican form of government here in the US, rather than a direct democracy. Of course subject-matter experts in government are going to say that they shouldn't rely on the judgment of the public at large. That's a far cry from calling them morons.
-- (Not really said by) Winston Churchill
If your metric of status or intelligence is doing the least amount of work for the most payoff, then government probably is the best deal around. So I don't think that government officials necessarily think of us as morons, but more like rubes who are easily seduced by idealistic rhetoric. If you are completely cynical and just want to "get yours", then working for government is indeed a smart choice.
Further, expertise comes not just from the amount of time you spend on something but how much feedback you receive and how you respond to that feedback. Few, if any, legislators will measure the economic or social impact of their bills 1-5 years after it's enacted.
What you end up with is a lot of people who are convinced they're doing a whole lot of good, when in fact they're more or less pushing paper and making their donors happy.
You couldn't tell from my comment history here, but I used to be a believer in the power of gov't to solve problems. Up-close observation taught me the error of my ways.
The reality is that the observer is just as limited as the 'fools' he is observing. He just doesn't realise that, or perhaps, cannot accept it.
It's especially hard for people to accept that when they feel their position and status in life depends on the grandiloquence and success of their visions, vs, say, high quality widgets made. As beltway bureaucrats rarely produce tangible things except laws, they are very susceptible to thinking that because they have a job in a position of power, they must ipso-facto be qualified to wield that power, and as they are rarely domain experts in anything technical or specific, that qualification must be their generally superior intellect.
It's not just America that has this problem. Recent events in the EU show the problem there may be dramatically worse.
Rich donors are by and large not buying political favors, they're trying to buy social status. They idolize these politicians and want to impress their social circle by shaking their hands. It's truly pathetic. They are the kids who got picked last in gym class and are still insecure about it. They would probably take a bullet for the chance to host a fundraiser.
It's like how many cops deal with lawbreakers and miscreants all day, and develop a negative disposition towards the rest of the population, subconsciously thinking that their sample reflects the population at large.
Also, people are voting for Trump. In light of that, it takes extreme optimism and generosity to think that millions of voters are anything more than hopeless morons.
