Basically yes. It's only useful in the idealistic universe of grade school political science. In actual politics, collusion, careerism, bribery, etc. will persist. A different set of official rules is only a different starting point for the same inevitable behavior. Furthermore, in America's case, the ultimate check will always be the check the capitalists are writing to the politicians.
gottorf|2 years ago
Hence the whole idea behind checks and balances, i.e. "ambition must be made to counteract ambition". The founders were well aware that any system of government that depends on an unbroken chain of decent people is bound to fail, and fail much sooner rather than later.
By decentralizing power and slicing and dicing it into many layers and segments (local vs. state vs. federal, executive vs. judicial vs. legislative), the damage done by collusion, careerism, bribery, etc. will be more limited and easier to be balanced out by the other forces in government.
Systems must be designed so that individuals trending towards fulfilling their own incentives nevertheless generate positive outcomes for the system as a whole. American government does a pretty good job at that. So does capitalism as a whole; as Adam Smith put it, "it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest".