[quote=@Darcs]
An authoritarian government ran by someone philosophical or moderate (who, might I remind you, would only be that subjectively) would be even worse for a country as diverse as America.
[/quote]

Speaking as a Jew, which is to say as part of a minority, a culture that definitely prizes discourse (argument) and as a person with ancestors pushed around because of their faith, I'm rather fine with the idea of a country that has to argue before it arrives at a decision, where no decision is necessarily final. (Alexis de Tocqueville even commented on this phenomenon -- [i][sub]'This ceaseless agitation which democratic government has introduced into the political world, influences all social intercourse. I am not sure that upon the whole this is not the greatest advantage of democracy; and I am much less inclined to applaud it for what it does, than for what it causes to be done.'[/sub][/i][url=http://www.history1700s.com/index.php/articles/21-politics/762-activities-which-pervades-all-branches.html]*[/url]) 

Why do I like that? Because I don't have any faith whatsoever in the infallible judgment of one person to make the right call, especially given the aforementioned diversity. While untidy and often unsatisfying, I much prefer the rule of law that gives people a recourse, as well as a society that allows people to argue, and I can live with the fallible elements of the system. 

So the trains don't run on time, boo-hoo, but at least those trains aren't carting people off to showers in Poland. It takes time to get anything done and it never gets done completely, but attempts to expedite the process by throwing more power at one guy seem to have backfired thus far. Standoffs between branches of the government, long-running legal disputes, filibustering in legislatures? All part of the package deal, I suppose.