Maybe I don’t understand you. But it sounds like you think democracy doesn’t work? What are you suggesting? Would you like to return to a more pronounced political separation between the haves and have-nots?
I disagree with your suggestion that “cranky” religious people used to just complain, as though they complained from the sidelines of power. Religion institutions and political power have been hand-in-hand to oppress women, gays, minorities. Religious power has not just been a “cranky” sermon. And the US made a decision at its founding to reject an official religion because of the history of religious oppression in government.
You say people are angry about the government telling them what to do— but people are angry because they are rejecting (1) religion in government— these people are opposed to Christian nationalism or (2) science in government— these people are anti-vax, anti-CRT, anti-public education.
It looks to me that we are at a crossroads between choosing the Renaissance or choosing the religious Dark Ages.
Democracy is a process. It is not an unchanging state of being. Democracy is a process that deals with changing conditions— new environmental threats, new information from people whose voices were previously ignored or silenced, and new technological developments and their impacts.
I don’t know what new political model you think might be better than democracy. What do you suggest?
For my part, I realize a democracy is a work in progress, and it is the role of government to support its people so that they can live and grow and eventually cast votes to determine our laws and leaders.
How the people are best supported is an opinion, and democracy asks to people to express their opinion via elections. What other political model would be better?