In my view, you're being too simplistic. I'll give you a small but significant example as to why. I assume you would consider Massachusetts a Democratic state, right?? Take a look:
I
n Cape Cod, a 2001 attempt to launch what would have been the U.S.'s first offshore wind farm was abandoned after a decade of lawsuits from local residents concerned about disrupting fishing patterns and coastal views. Anti-Wind Farm Activism Is Sweeping Europe—and the U.S. Could Be Next
I remember this well, and it was the "coastal views" that made up the majority of complaints. So. the "not in my backyard" folks prevailed, but a lot of those folks were wealthy and liberal.
"Cape Wind went up against the nearly unstoppable force of upper-class liberal NIMBYism and was defeated," Benson said.News - Controversial Cape Wind Project Terminated | Heartland Institute
This is the problem with elitism on yes, "both sides." Democrats are certainly not immune. The magic wand you reference may actually be within our grasp. Exposing corruption and wealth pandering at the expense of the people can only be done - as is common in Europe - with a multi-party approach. It reduces antagonism because people have a broader selection of parties to choose from that can align more realistically with their views. In other words, they have a voice. And most importantly, multi-party systems can keep each other "in check" so to speak, and have to work for compromise right from the get go, instead of all the bickering and time wasting that a petty two party system produces. If the environment is a mainstream concern, as another poster suggested, then voting for those that hold it dear is the best way to implement change and protect it. Thanks!!
