Glad you want to look at this better, Benjamin.

What I do not appreciate is the remark that late-modern consumers are empowered only in as far as they have the financial means to be spoiled by corporations.

This group is limited, and hence this undermines the idea that all people are empowered; it is limited to just those that can afford to be be spoiled brats. Since these folks float to the top, they become the emblem, the front runners. Yet they are not the entire group of people in the United States, which overall is terribly not-empowered in equal manners.

A game of have and have-nots takes place, very similar to divide-and-conquer. The followers have no means to change "the emblem of this reality" or "the top of the stack" because they stand on a slanted platform, the bottom section fighting with all their might to get to higher grounds.

The example of Trump is even more interesting because his supporters are aware of the slanted reality. They want to fight back with all means possible. The Red Party of the United States hijacked so today we have an Orange Party, ready to swing a club in anyone's face.

Again, the empowerment of Trump is a direct result of the population not being empowered as it should.

Infantilism is a result of the incorrect empowerment of citizens in the United States, much like the political center in the United States picking the next president while not all that interested in politics. The voters to the left and the voters to the right are all well-vested and often well-educated in their political views. The infantilism seen with the voters in the center, most important in making the ultimate decision, that is why infantilism is prevalent in the United States.