I appreciate the welcome! One thing I'm concerned about is that people seem to think that Trump's ideology will disappear from politics once he's gone, and I'm not so sure about that. The Republican Party was on a steady shift rightward before Trump, and aspiring grifter tools like Gaetz and Cotton are waiting eagerly to take his mantle. Joe's administration, in its commitment to corporate interests, tries to win over the moderate Republicans rather than the progressives, because their political interests align more closely with the corporations', so the Democratic base shifts right as well. It seems to me like the new Democratic Party is moderate conservative neolib and the new GOP is Trump's prodigy club.
While I don't agree with every element, I appreciate the depth of thought that has gone into it. I agree that Gaetz, Cotton, Meadows and others will try to latch onto the mantle and claim to be the "heirs" to Trump's legacy - and they are welcome to it, as they are as execrable. I don't think it is going to fade away, but that is because Trump is not the cause, but the symptom. He well represents the current Republican party, even if they prefer to pretend otherwise. Barr is not an outlier. The party itself is lost and needs to languish in the wilderness until it can reform itself.
I also agree that there is a centrist element of the Democratic party - the DLC - that is far too deferential to corporate interests. I'll even confess that I originally thought that they were approaching it appropriately. But, that is not the heart and soul of the Democratic party, as you posit, and I think you are misreading the currents. I understand the impetus of that wing, even.
In order to govern, and govern well, one has to be able to understand and influence the economy. The bulk of economic power of nearly any economy is in corporate forms. It is, in my estimation, a "necessary evil". Those that ignore that or pretend that capitalism/industry is the enemy of the nation are doomed to failure and irrelevance. At the same time, every relationship with major industries is fraught. I spent a good deal of my career dealing with "regulated industries". Every agency that is established to bring them to heal runs the risk of being captured by the very entities they are established to regulate - especially if foxes are put in charge of the henhouses.
I think, of our current crop of thinkers on the subject, Elizabeth Warren best understands this and has the best ideas about how to manage them. The CFPB is a good example of that. The FDIC and NCUA are as well. But, they are all directed at the financial industry. Similarly, the SEC only regulates the financial aspects of markets. Individual industries have individual regulators (FDA, USDA, etc.). The smaller the agency, and the smaller the slice of the economy they are established to regulate, the greater the risk of capture. When that happens, they become an advocate for the industry within the government, rather than a regulator of that industry itself. Being aware of this dynamic is essential for the leadership of any of these agencies.
That tension between good governance and a thriving industry (which is good for the economy) requires a delicate balance. It is not always going to balance, tilting one way or the other. Our problem, nationally, is that there is one party that is unabashedly aligned with those corporate interests deliberately trying to upset the balance. Whenever they hold sway, corporate interests get to romp gaily through the regulatory agencies disrupting any semblance of regulation and unfettered by rationality.
There is a problem within the Democratic party as well, which you touch on, but I think that your response misses a great deal of that dynamic. The assumption that Joe Biden, and other moderates, are "captured" by corporations is generated by anti-capitalists within the party as well. They tend to tilt at windmills, or howl at the wind, without considering what the windmills produce and the good that they can do for society if maintained properly. That is the role of government, to maintain the windmills in good working order, rather than tear them all down. Now, some should be dismantled, but one has to know enough about how they work to be able to discern the difference.