From the article:
"There is a war going on right now between those who are working to protect the commons and the hard-core capitalists, who are working to privatize our economy, culture, ecology, environment and government."
Although I find the war frame problematic, the statement does show that there are certainly more than one camp of individuals. It also explains that up until relatively recently, which is to say before our nation became a whole-sale subsidiary of Corporations, Inc., this item known as "The commons" and its relationship to the principle and premise of "The Greater Good" still meant something.
Still, in properly diagnosing the conflict between those who care about others along with The Commons and those corporate plunderers fixed on Disaster Capitalism (while externalizing costs along with the inevitable fall-out), it then becomes disingenuous to attach this statement as conclusion to the article's opening thesis:
"But since Ronnie “gubmint-is-the-problem” Reagan, Americans have behaved like slack-jawed yokels at a three-card Monty festival, disabling, underfunding and discrediting government and turning the country over to a bunch of crazed Ayn Rand acolytes, making ourselves poorer, while destroying natural capital, our children’s birthright."
What part of the covert maneuvers of the Deep State, the blowback of deregulation, the full blown influence of the Military-Industrial-Media Complex, and the costs of elections (causing them to become absolute candidate sell-outs) did Mr. Atcheson miss?
Too many people STRAIN to make the problem into that of "Americans." That kind of homogenous blanket condemnation makes a mockery of the article's opening statement since so many ARE fighting on so many fronts to oppose oligarchy and/or its New World Order intentions (with TPP and TIPP factoring substantially into that calculus).