Quote Originally Posted by Culpeper
That is purely philosophical and biased because you are describing the history of politics in America not just "modern society/government". This "sort of structural flaw" has been around since America was established and has seen more success than failure. One structural flaw comes to mind. The Sedition Act of 1918. With it, President Wilson was able to ensure success with World War I. When it was no longer needed it was repealed. You'll have to excuse politicians because almost all of them are not military strategists. It's the nature of the beast but it does not ensure failure.
While the roots of any structural problem would go back centuries the actual flaws may only have come about due to resent changes in . . . politics, technology, society, etc. For instance the basic structure of United States government was created long before the 24 hour news cycle, blogers, the entrenched two party system, or million dollar campaigns to name a few; all of things change the perception the citizens have of the government. Add to that changes in societal perceptions about the role of government, the US role in the world, etc. and you create a situation where what at one time was unperceivable defect can become a fatal flaw.

Politicians not being strategist is irrelevant; by in large they don’t need to be, any more than a general needs to know how to drive a tank. Lincoln success as commander in chief despite his lack of relevant experience is famous. What he did have was a willingness to admit failure and find the people he need to allow him to prevail. If we accept Lincoln as being a product of his time and not exceptional than something has changed since the current president is no Abraham Lincoln. If we accept Lincoln as being exceptional (more likely in my opinion) then we are still left with the issues of how we choose average presidents since we can not always wait for a great man to come and save us from ourselves.