Despotism is the natural goal of politics

Politics is the most fascinating sport there is, a never-ending saga of struggle to wield the terrible power of government to achieve one's ends while stopping one's opponent from using that same power effectively. That makes for a sea of colorful characters and exciting battles, carried out by people who are notoriously pleased with themselves.
"Pink Floyd, in the song "Us and Them," said "With, without/ And who'll deny that's what the fighting's all about."
Politics is the struggle for control of limited resources. It is never any more complicated than that.
A reader e-mailed me a quote which read, "What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else," attributed to a Dr. Adrian Rogers. He was, of course, absolutely right.
For me, the beginning of political understanding was found in Frank Herbert's "Dune." The science fiction yarn disguised a very sophisticated primer on political warfare as a thriller, eminently readable for a young teenager. I have found, after all these years, that the lessons I learned from Herbert to be continually validated.
Generally, sci-fi stories are set in a future utopia in which science and technology have freed people from want and grand "federations" have eliminated war and people live in peace and harmony. In "Dune," by contrast, the people of the far-distant future live in a repressive, feudal society in which noble blood is the only avenue to power. Outside of the nobility, human life is meaningless. Common folk are tools to be used up or animals to be hunted for sport.
How could an advanced society descend into feudalism? The growth and expansion of any organism (including humans) is limited by the least-available resource. In that story, the limited resource was not only water, but travel, given the great distances between people. When people were utterly dependant on government to gain access to what they needed, politicians naturally became lords and emperors.
Just as water seeks its level, political power seeks despotism as its end.
Historians say that the development of early civilization centered around wells. In Mesopotamia, water was the least-available resource. When strong men seized control of the well, they restricted access to those who submitted or were deemed desirable. For those who were not valued by the baron of the well, or who did not submit to his authority or pay his tribute, access was cut off.
The American Revolution was successful because the Crown of Great Britain had no ability to control access to resources. Colonists did not depend on the Crown for anything fundamental. Thus they were able to assert their independence without loss of anything they could not procure or produce for themselves.
The Second Amendment enshrined the parity the people enjoyed with government. Their right to keep and bear arms made them, man-to-man, equal with the government. The arms people kept and bore in those days were pretty much the equal of the government's arms. Everyone was equipped with smooth-bore, single shot weapons.
Today the weapons the government uses to preserve itself are entirely beyond the class of weapons available to civilians. Two hundred years ago, an armed peasant could square off against an armed soldier. Today, that would be suicide.
Governments have developed resources – weapons – that are entirely unavailable to the people. As the Second Amendment opponents like to say, we don't want our neighbors to have access to rockets and nuclear bombs and mustard gas and such.
That, in a nutshell, is why the general trend of politics in the past 100-plus years has been away from freedom and towards more and more powerful governments. It is a rare leader who maintains his altruistic goals once he has seized the power to kill with impunity.
As the Obama administration and the 111th Congress wrestle with the present economic crisis, they will be faced with the great temptation to solve their constituents' wants by giving them the property of others -- taxing the minority and giving the spoils to the majority. History shows no example (that I know of) where that technique has led to sustained growth and prosperity, but hundreds of examples of politicians achieving short-term support and power.
There is nothing that can hinder them. They have the guns, the courts, the cops, the armies to make their wishes reality. Militia-nuts who imagine themselves fighting off the government with their rifles and walkie-talkies are living in a dream. Just ask David Koresh.
The economic crisis is severe enough and the fear on the street palpable enough that folks are willing to see radical measures, just as they were prepared to suspend the Bill of Rights to win the War on Terror back in 2002. One can only pray President-elect Obama has a decent heart.