This isn't some new argument, and was an issue thoroughly hashed out by the time of the American Revolution and was the basis for the Bill of Rights and why a republican form of government was chosen. All of history's examples of smaller, less accountable forms of government had been tried and failed. All the more accountable forms of government even including direct democracies had been tried and failed.
Representative democracy, with a mostly unaccountable judiciary, wasn't picked on a whim, and hasn't lasted this long by accident. We certainly don't need to change it to some technocracy like has been tried over and over with genocidal results.
We are in agreement so long as those who get elected are not too selfish or too easily duped and there is balance in the system. But as far as I know all empires eventually fail. Some last much longer than others. Since the U.S. style republican form of governance is a recent thing it’s hard to conclude that it’s the best form. Why is it better than the British constitutional democracy? Or Canada’s system?
You also seem to be unaware of the U.S.’s role in genocide within its own borders and its role in genocide within other borders. We should keep in mind that it used to be the case that only white, land owning males could vote. That slavery existed for a long time in the U.S. and then we had Jim Crow.
The American Republic will last as long as there is balance in the system and only if those we elect are not knaves and fools. Populism based on fear or hatred is a dangerous thing in any system and can bring instability. The U.S. is not immune to forces that can destroy the essence of the country.
