That's not a microkernel you're describing. That's a modular monolith with malicious drivers (read: lobbyist-influenced legislators) you're describing. In a microkernel government, said legislators would be running in userspace, and therefore not have a direct influence on kernel-space policies like they do now.
The only way our government could possibly be described as a "microkernel" is if it's a microkernel a la AmigaOS, where memory protection is virtually nonexistent (at least in the early versions).
Our disagreement is a matter of perspective on where the real power lies.
> legislators would ... not have a direct influence on kernel-space policies
They don't. The kernel is not the federal government, which is but one group of (albeit somewhat privileged) processes. The kernel is economic control, which is why I pointed out that most of your daily life is shaped by non-government processes.
Then we're not talking about a microkernel government, but instead talking about microkernel socioeconomics.
If we stick to the former case, though, then it's not accurate to say that the economy is the kernel of this hypothetical operating system. The federal government very much is; just because it's susceptible to a multitude of security-related bugs doesn't mean that it's no longer the kernel, much like how just because the NT kernel is susceptible to a multitude of security-related bugs doesn't mean that it's no longer the kernel.
As I said, different perspectives on the power relationship between USG and megacorps.
It's like someone used a security bug in NT to load a hypervisor. You could say that NT was still "the kernel", but most of the important stuff goes on outside of it.
The only way our government could possibly be described as a "microkernel" is if it's a microkernel a la AmigaOS, where memory protection is virtually nonexistent (at least in the early versions).