How far back do you go? And how do you decide? It seems to me that since each state has a statehouse, with representation, and we have a Federal government bringing all the states together, again with bicameral representation, an amendment process, and courts, a free press, and a free market, that it's a little tough to justify "tearing" all that down in order to make it better.
Just because you don't like the OJ verdict, doesn't mean you burn down the courthouse, or revert back to English common law and begin our legal history all over again. Our government provides instruments with which to work. They have defined roles and limitations, but those are, as always, subject to our own ability to mind them.
So, how do you decide what is "idiocy" that needs turning back, and what isn't? Do I get to vote on it? Oh, that would be demon democracy. OK, do I get to vote for representation who will decide? How will it be determined? State by state? That's the republican way. So, let's see, we'll elect representatives from each state, then we'll have them all meet someplace, debate and vote on what to do, and we'll call it a Congress....
Get my drift? The instruments are all there and perfectly functional. Your problem is with the people. So what do you do? Kill people who disagree? Take away their rights? Clearly, a lot of Americans think Medicare is NOT idiocy in need of rolling back. Our system isn't keeping your from rolling it back. The people are!