If someone is your servant, they do what you want them to do. If you pay them, it's because you agree on what their work is going to be worth to you. That's called a trade.
If someone is your master, they tell you what to do. If you pay them, it's because they require you to pay them. Sometimes that's called tribute.
Now compare the elites in Washington to those two definitions. Don't especially the progressive Democrats, pushing a health care bill that is overwhelmingly opposed by the people, fit the definition of Master better than that of Servant?
Has Democracy in America led to the servant becoming the master? Or has it always been somewhat that way and the idea of "Public Servants" has always been a sham?
They argue that "it's for our own good" and that the elites know better than the people do what's good for them. That may describe a more "benevolent' slave master in the pre-civil war south, but it's hardly how anyone would describe a good servant.
"The master and servant relationship only arises when the tasks are performed by the servant under the direction and control of the master and are subject to the master's knowledge and consent." - Answers.com
Even that argument falls down pretty flat in the face of billions for bailouts and pork benefitting their friends and fellow elites. It's not their money that's getting spent. Who's in charge here, anyway? Who's supposed to benefit again?