Why do people so willingly surrender their power to control their own lives?

Cuba

THE FAMILY OF the new American ambassador in Havana in 1929, Harry Frank Guggenheim, rose to economic prominence with global successes in mining and smelting. Ambassador Guggenheim was struck by the improvements in Cuba that he assumed had been the result of Machado's presidency. Cuba, which had been ravaged during the revolutionary years, now boasted modern roads, bridges, buildings, railroads, and other marks of a modern nation that he credited to a progressive government administration, just as Hitler would later be lauded for lifting Germany out of the depression.

American Ambassador to Cuba, Harry Frank Guggenheim (click to enlarge)

Guggenheim also believed that Cuba was dominated by foreigners by the logical workings of a free enterprise economy. He argued that the average Cuban didn't have the personal drive to climb the ladder of success. Cries from island communities for economic reform were unreasonable. If Guggenheim saw any cause for criticizing the government, it was limited to the national lottery, frequent amnesty laws that pardoned criminals and undermined justice, and congressional licensing of immunity privileges. He singled out the lottery for particular scorn. 

Years later, well after Machado's fall, Guggenheim softened his stance in support of the Cuban President, but only after America had completely disassociated itself from it.

Machado's heavy-handed administration inspired sporadic outbursts led mostly by university students. Machado responded by closing the university. Violence begat violence and innocent bystanders were harmed. Machado blamed it on communist agitators, a cry that would reverberate among Latin American dictators for decades to come, and America would respond in every case with support for the worst tyrannies.

Why didn't America disavow Machado earlier? Some argue that the United States was an unwilling judge of the Cuban government under the terms of the Platt Amendment and the Permanent Treaty that provided for American intervention in case the island's government was imperiled by another revolution. However, it is clear that American businessmen exerted their influence in Washington in favor of any Cuban government that maintained the status quo and provided protection for their investments in the island.

A similar problem can be seen developing in America today. Washington appears loyal more to business interests than the electorate. Voters have abrogated their influence over Congress and the White House by either staying away from the polls or by reelecting incumbents without regard for their performance in office. Meanwhile, big money interests such as labor unions and quasi-governmental agencies (such as Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae) dictate the course of legislation and government administration.