If it matters that much who is in charge of the vast federal bureaucracy, then we should probably get rid of the vast federal bureaucracy.
you think like someone who struggles to get past first premises into actual complications and nuance.
Not really. If the government has so much power to the point it's absolutely crucial that a certain party maintain power, then it is logical in a world where power bounces back and forth between two parties to shrink its power. The disconnect here is that one party openly advocates expanding government at every turn no matter the issue or expense and then act surprised and angry when they don't get to run it for a few years. It's mostly because they are wholly corrupt and being in charge is how they rake in their slush fund money, but the media sells the we're all gonna die in a gutter nonsense instead.
One party openly advocates expanding government, and the other pretends to want to shrink government but is actually responsible for more expansion in the last 50 years. The worst part is that they actually succeed at drawing in suckers like you with their talking points. You are one of the dopes that actually buys in to Republican obfuscation and failed talking points!
The indictments you put up for the Dem Party are literally the same thing the Repub Party does.
fail to understand because you lack the capability (unlikely);
fail to understand because the Repubs do a great job of obfuscating their positions and talking out of both sides of their mouth (maybe);
don't want to hold the Repub Party responsible for their actions (maybe);
don't actually care about government encroachment as long as it's per your specific wants (maybe);
Love to trade in cognitive dissonance (highly likely, based on the last ~6 years of your posting).
Expanding power and using the government as a slush fund to enrich themselves and their sponsors is a problem with both parties, but you only want to hold one party to task. Stop pretending there's a difference.