I read (in the Wall Street Journal) that the new Vice President of the U.S. quipped that he's never had a boss before. Of course it was only a joke, but it's a revealing one. Don't all politicians have a boss--i.e., the people who elect them?

Evidently that's not how most of today's career politicians see it.

This is in abundant evidence with the latest batch of arrogant power-lusters in Washington DC. The current regime got elected saying very little about anything other than "change" and "economic recovery." Now in office, they're well aware of polls showing that a majority of Americans prefer much more limited government than the massive expansion of socialism and nationalization now being put into place. They couldn't care less. Why? Because "we won." It's power that determines truth and what's right in the nation's capital, and increasingly for the rest of us. Might makes right.

In the end, I blame the people who voted in willful mental darkness for allowing themselves to be exploited by these unworthy successors to Madison, Jefferson and Washington. But it doesn't change the fact that the typical politician in 2009 America is exploitative and unconcerned about the right of the individual to live in peace and freedom.

Look at the recently impeached Governor of Illinois for a surreal parody. Really, the dethroned governor was only doing what ordinary politicians do every day--sacrificing some for the sake of others. He was only more open and brazen about it. On our current course, he will be the politician of the future. Didn't any of you read that into his comments? To me, it was as plain as day. In a world that becomes ever more insane every day, the truly insane start to sound rational, because at least they're consistent.

Nevertheless, the Vice President and President work for the people and serve at the pleasure of the people. If the people really want socialism, they're going to get it (and will deserve every bit of the results). If they don't want it, then the politicians who expanded it will be punished. Assuming we continue to have elections in this country, the current President and Vice President are up for reelection in four years (and for a vote of approval or disapproval in Congress, in two years).

The whole idea of a limited government was one inhabited by elected officials who would serve the people in a limited way, and then move on. The U.S. was not constructed to have a government of career politicians who feel like they answer to nobody. That's what the Soviet Union was for, that's what Communist China is for, and that's what places like Iran are for. Of course, the people who originally inhabited the U.S. must have been by and large a different sort of people. I don't think they would have elected--or even considered--the type of people holding the highest office today. Given that they were willing to fight and even die for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they would never have nominated (much less elected) into office leaders who consider such things irrelevant obstacles to their personal power.