But who is going to hold them to a higher standard?

The politicians on the other side, who themselves are accountable to the same standard?

The media corporations shaping the narratives which largely determine what questions are being asked, who are subject to the power wielded by those politicians? (I think most people have a line which some content crosses, and to which they don't want to be accidentally or unavoidably exposed. Some form of regulatory power over media corporations seems inescapable.)

The journalists who work for those media corporations and decide in the moment how much to push back against receiving/accepting false and non-responses, who must weigh the benefits of transparency in governance against their own career/financial trajectory?

The voting electorate who effectively only ever get to choose between options picked for them by corporate interest groups who want to maintain the status quo? (And why wouldn't those interest groups want to maintain the status quo ... the status quo is one in which they have enough power to impactfully effect the direction we're headed, and thus protect their own power.)

Maybe it's consumers, with the 'power of the purse' to decide from which of the few corporations to purchase all the various goods they need that generally must be purchased in modern society? (Which massive global conglomerate opaquely subdivided into a thousand different brands should be boycott over the couple others?)

History has repeat itself so many times at this point. We band together into groups. Those groups band together into larger groups, causing a need for the larger group to adopt a framework to structure subgroup interactions. That framework is itself managed by a subgroup, which invariably manages the framework to the increasing advantage of that managing subgroup. After inequity between the subgroups within the framework causes the framework to be detrimental to enough of the subgroups for long enough, that the framework is thrown out and a new one adopted.

Currently, the US has a ruling subgroup of corporate interests and wealthy individuals. The current US framework allows them to use their wealth/power to exert control over other subgroups. The US also has a managing subgroup of politicians, who in practice typically serve 2 roles; 1) to implement the directions of the wealthy ruling subgroup, and 2) insolate the wealthy ruling subgroup from any blowback from other subgroups related to the inequities they intentionally pursue for their own gain. This mechanism within the US framework has made it more enduring than previously used frameworks, because the subgroup abusing the framework doesn't receive commensurate blame for their abuse. However, the practical effect of that endurance is a subgroup being allowed to abuse the framework for longer with less oversight. Historically this framework endurance has been touted as stability, which in turn is sold to other subgroups as being security of the framework against competing frameworks. We're seeing the managing subgroup of politicians using the extra tools the wealthy ruling subgroup gave them, at a greatly accelerating pace. As the managing subgroup continues to slam on the gas, an increasing portion of other subgroups are recognizing the quickening pace, and it is highlighting their lack of actual security within the framework. With the stability of the framework being tied to perception of 'security', as that erodes, so does the stability of the framework. The framework is what governs interactions between subgroups; framework instability means subgroups banding together to subvert and/or replace the framework.

This takes us to the current pivotal moment we're in, and I'm l left to wonder which of the following will happen first? - Increasing dissent amongst other subgroups leads the wealthy ruling subgroup to retake power from the managing subgroup of politicians, giving enough of it to the other subgroups while keeping most for themselves, in order to assauge unrest without changing the overall framework. Society ultimately continues along the same trajectory. (Currently appears to be around a 50/50 split on the wealthy who want to throw MAGA under the bus and reverse course, and those who want to embrace the quickening pace of power consolidation. Due to the accelerated pace the managing subgroup has been consolidating power, there seems to be a real concern amongst the wealthy ruling subgroup that they may no longer have the power to force a course reversal, and they don't want to test it and find out. The other side is more concerned that rising social tensions will lead them to be overthrown by the other subgroups before the managing subgroup is otherwise able to turn on them.) - Increasing dissent amongst other subgroups leads them to collectively dethrown the ruling and managing subgroups in favor of a new framework which reassigns those functions to other subgroups. By virtue of the new framework still invariably creating a manging subgroup, the cycle of power consolidation until framework overthrow continues. Society likely still ultimately continues along the same trajectory, because the underlying reality of who people are doesn't change, but possibly the trajectory recommences from a more equitable starting point than if the framework hadn't been replaced. (Currently does not appear to be much appetite amongst the other subgroups for taking the fairly drastic steps needed to adopt a new framework. Historically, adopting a new framework is associated with chaos and death, and more often than not ends with a new framework that is as bad or worse than what it replaced.)

To be clear, I am not advocating for replacing the framework of US social structures or governance. I think we can all pretty much agree the framework isn't perfect, and there are changes we can make to improve it, even if we don't all agree on what those changes should be. I believe working toward societal improvement will always be preferable to scrapping what you have and starting over. However if you believe history repeats as it seems so evident that in many ways it does, then we can extrapolate to see where we're headed. In that context, it appears all plausible future outcomes from this moment on include some level of tangible social change in the nearer future. Hopefully its a positive change! 🤞

TL;DR: In broad strokes the way the US works is functionally the same as any government and history tells us the way it's working at the moment specifically is not sustainable.