When Mahatma Gandhi was asked what he thought of western civilization, he replied that he thought it would be a good idea.
The same could be said for free market capitalism.
The reality is it does not exist. And probably never has. But in the last few decades the US, in particular, has moved even further away from the free market economy. Corporate welfare and corporate cronyism are the two main problems. The Fed is another. But there is also a fatal flaw in the electoral system itself.
In a nutshell, there are no conviction politics, only career politicians.
These people learn how to debate in debating societies... they can argue for a proposition just as effectively as they can argue against it. Very much like lawyers (indeed, Obama is a lawyer, Thatcher was a lawyer, Blair was a lawyer). They can adopt a defence or prosecutorial position. They don't actually BELIEVE in the rights or wrongs of (either side). It is essentially an adversarial system.
In the UK, for example, all the party leaders studied at Oxford or Cambridge. They all come from privileged backgrounds of wealth and social standing. When they enter politics they more or less toss a coin to decide whether to be Labour or Conservative (broadly equivalent to Democrat and Republican). It really makes no difference to them which "side" they're on, because they understand that the sides are just a show for the electorate. They all come from the same background, and from the same club.
In the college debating societies, speakers pick their "position" - the proposition they have to argue for or against - out of a hat. The House of Commons is simply a continuation of this sport.
In fact the very architecture and decor of the House of Parliament is practically identical to that of the halls of Oxford and Cambridge. The same language is used, the same robes are worn, and so on. Government is merely a continuation of privileged collegiate life.
When Tony Blair became Prime Minister of Britain, it was on a socialist ticket. He condemned the Thatcher government and promised sweeping changes if he became PM. But when he was elected, the first person he invited to 10 Downing Street was - guess who? - Margaret Thatcher. The woman he professed to revile. It came out later, of course, that Thatcher was his hero. And he went to her for advice throughout his period in office.
In the US, Barack Obama condemned what he called the "Washington elite", and promised radical change if and when he was elected president. He even promised to launch a criminal inquiry into the decisions (to go to war) made by George W Bush and members of his administration, and pledged to indict those found guilty of wrongdoing. As soon as he was elected, however, he made a speech in which he said "this is not a time for dwelling on the past", and he let Bush and his cohorts off the hook. He went on to secure an amnesty for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and others, thus making it impossible for them to be charged with war crimes or treason at a later date.
warisacrime.org/content/obama-doj-asks-court-grant-immunity-george-w-bush-iraq-warA few months later, photos appeared in the press of Obama and Bush playing golf together, all buddy-buddy.
And this is the problem. These people see politics as a game. They appear to be strongly opposed to each other on moral and ideological grounds, but in reality this is nothing more than a strategic stance. None of this people is ever going to challenge the status quo, or make any radical changes to the system, because they are themselves cogs within the machinery. The game is to score points and get elected, or re-elected. And any perceived differences between politicians from "opposite" parties are completely illusory.
