I realize this isn't a satisfactory answer, but one can take some slight solace in the fact that there isn't a singular person representing the interests of hundreds of millions of Americans. It's far, far, from perfect, but we do have multiple layers of representation, debate, and professional staff involved in all these decisions. E.g. the president may be the head of the executive branch, but there's still the House, Senate, judiciary, civil service agency staff, state governments, local governments, etc. etc.
Compared to other nations out there these days it could be a lot worse, could also be a lot better, but it's the creaky ship we find ourselves in. One that happens to contain over a hundred million people that politically are in a very different place than most of the folks in this thread.
That said, if you're talking about the debate itself, then yeah. I stopped watching them a few elections ago, they're not terribly relevant anymore. For all the media focuses on them, only a fraction of Americans watch them (which may be for the best) and they don't move the needle much. And, as you say, they're fairly farcical in concept.
For the record, these are the matters to which I refer to being cast into irrelevance. The presidency means, or should mean, next to nothing, frankly they should be nothing more than a glorified diplomat with no incentive, or better yet legal ability to speak directly to the American people. The deadlock of our national bicameral congress, the horrifying racism, backsliding, and increasingly totalitarianist judiciary system at EVERY level, and frankly the simple fallibility of government agencies are way more important issues that just don't get tackled because they are insulated in some fashion from the public consciousness at large.
Also, don't you DARE give me that "it could be worse" bs, it could ALWAYS be worse. But it could, and it SHOULD be a lot better. What makes it particularly galling now is the ease and quality of things that could be better for so many Americans at the cost to so few that is only made impossible by the greed and baselessness of a such a tiny minority.
^
That's how I've felt for the past 15 years.
My greatest aspiration in life now, is to move to a remote cabin far away from anyone and everyone else, and just be. The gagglefuckery that is the USA however, would like nothing else but to prevent and then shit on that very simple desire.
Has been my goal for a decade now - just gotta convince my city-slicker wife to join me in the forest.
What's with everyone's eyes leaking fluids? Is this going to happen to me when I get old? Or is this some sort of upper-echelon drug we don't know about?
Is it time for me to complain that people trying to "move away from it all" are slowly destroying our forestry and environment in the name of outdated Thoreau-esque escapism which by it's very nature causes both more long-term (general) and short term (local) damage to the environment than anyone living in the middle of a dense city? That every single person moving out two miles from the nearest human being means the next person has to move two miles more? That you are yourselves bringers of the destructive power of industrialized civilization? That the myth of an endless "wilderness" untouched by man that you could just move to and start over has been out of date for at least an entire fucking century? Though no impulse is more American than to simply leave everyone else behind due to incompatible politics and establish your own home away from all that, at some point the simple fact is you run out of land. After all they ain't making more of it. Instead we devestate the environment in pursuit of our snowglobe version of the same, of greenlawns and our own "neck of the woods", so instead of having to accept the fact that our shit stinks we make nature deal with it like we always have; because nature, unlike people, doesn't complain when your cars produce exhaust, it doesn't complain when you don't reduce or properly handle your refuse and trash. It only stinks to us when it happens in such masses from us all living together, when it piles high as trash mountains or as smog we have to deal with the consequences of our actions; but still produce the same car exhaust and garbage, it's just when we're all cramped up in cities it's other human beings who have to deal with it, and surprise that's why Wyoming has the highest CO2 emissions per capita in the country, that's why Alaska is fourth, that's why New-fucking-York has the lowest CO2 emissions per capita of any state in the US. But no let's pretend we care about the environment while simultaneously condoning the rape of the natural world through our escapist lifestyle.
Oh I'm sorry it's always time.
I'm pretty split on the ole agrarian republic. On one hand, the population growth of the past... well, all of human history I guess has been decidedly irresponsible, ill-advised, and motivated by nefarious intent or ignorance--what I mean is, it would be impossible to give everyone their own land and expect a sustainable culture. That said, within the realm of individual ability, it is unfortunately entirely REASONABLE for someone to say, "Hey, I don't want to be part of your massive effed up thing over here, and live in a small, sustainable way on my own or in a small community". That is no longer possible in a national or global context, it simply can't be done.
On the other hand, I imagine we would all have a lot LESS of that impulse if there were extreme measures (I'm done being moderate about things, most problems that face the US require drastic action--which they won't get, and it's a literal crime for which people should legitimately be punished for in the harshest terms possible) to address climate change, consumerism, "economies" based on unsustainable market growth, corporatization, and the hoarding of wealth. For me, it's about having space that I have control over, which everyone wants, and again is pretty fair to expect if you subscribe to the idea of pretty much any societal philosophy. It's about having privacy. It's about having TIME, your time, to spend as you please. Which goes back to what I was saying earlier, in that the entire US system is designed, maybe not by intention, to function in a way that nevertheless keeps people "contributing to society" in a way that really only benefits a select few people at threat of the loss of everyone else's basic human rights and needs.
I don't support an escapist utopia, but I do support a massive curbing of our consumption habits and return to a relatively simpler material world (not return to monkey, it would not be wise to disabuse ourselves of electricity or the internet or devices that keep us connected in what has become probably free-est form of common communication).