The success of its "indignation" shows both that it echoes a very strong feeling and that, unfortunately, the analysis which accompanies it is sufficiently simplistic to arouse a form of suspect unanimity (since it conforms to the prevailing prejudices ).
Completely backward-looking, his words celebrate an era during which, thanks to special conditions, certain advances could have developed: these conditions ceasing, these advances have faded.
I naturally conclude from this that the modifications had no structural character whatsoever since this era led us to the current situation and that it is therefore both impossible and illogical to try to repeat History.
This result is not the fact of a deviation or dysfunctions that a healthy "indignation" would be able to resolve, but the pursuit, for a moment concealed, of a long-term process.
I come to your note,
Obamot:
In reality, and I often say it, the rulers (most) are very overwhelmed by what is happening in the world (are we not ourselves at our humble level?).
So I'm not sure all the "actors" are consciously malicious! Certainly there are, and these are the ones who are in the sights.
The "actors" are indeed not particularly malicious, but, precisely as actors, play their role and in doing so cannot ignore the nature and the artificial character of the characters which they embody.
Basically, I think they are well informed (because well trained), or able to be, on the reality of the world, simply it is not they who wrote the play; probably, and this is where their pride is placed and what their care is about, can they bring their role to a particular coloring ... breathe a little life into the automaton.