Even in Kyoto

My feeling is, if you don't pick a team in our entrenched two-party system, you have very little chance of influencing policy, at least at the national level. But Trump has completely changed the Republican party's stance on trade, for example. It is possible to change policy from the inside.

I think you are conflating two very different issues on "too big to fail" versus breaking up monopolies. To break up monopolies, you need strong antitrust law. You have a better chance of a stronger anti-monopoly system with D lawmakers and liberal-leaning Supreme Court justices. (The Obama administration blocked the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint, citing antitrust concerns, while the Trump administration is expected to be friendlier to such prospects.) You also probably need to get academics to advocate against monopolies. The "too big to fail" issue, on the other hand, is about what players in the world economy pose a systemic risk to the rest of the system in times of economic crisis. You can refuse to revive them, but there will be serious collateral damage in the form of unemployment, among other issues. Saving the auto companies was different from bailing out the banks, though. It was more a political calculus to save the car companies--but it paid off in getting Rust Belt states to reelect Obama in 2012. I'm glad for that, even if it wasn't purely "good" policy. Anyway, too-big-to-fail is only an issue during times of crisis. If a major bank were to go bankrupt today it would be fine.

I am passionately practical in the political realm, as you can see. But the world needs idealists too.