When it only takes about $50,000 to get elected, then I'll believe your premise.
When the media (all types) actually start to pay attention to your ideas and policies, rather than your hair, your suit, or how white your teeth are, then I'll believe that we are doing this to ourselves.
The only politics that a "regular" guy can participate in is the School Board, dog catcher, or local municipal government.
Getting elected to a state legislature or to be a representative in the House (not to mention the House of Lords...errr, the Senate), it takes $25 million...MINIMUM.
Where is a normal guy going to get that? His smile? His looks? I don't think so. He's going to get it from donors. And, the parties aren't going to send someone "up" for election unless it is the "right" guy. The "right" guy usually isn't always the right guy.
We do elect them, in that we "pull the lever". But, frankly, it is typically because of the lack of choice, not because "Oh, my! This politicians the greatest things since sliced bread!".
I do agree with you that we do (and should) object to a branch of government that has no power to impose...well, imposing on us. The judiciary, generally, and SCOTUS, specifically, have been doing that for a long time.
But, your argument has another side. Following your logic, couldn't the state declare that the colleges can discriminate based on race, even though the Constitution prevents this? Yeah, I know, the Constitution would supercede that law, right?
Well, if a state has banned (or significantly limited...crossing your vaunted "reasonable regualation" threshold) the use of firearms because that's what the legislature wanted to do, the Constitution (and the 2nd Amendment specifically) supercede those "reasonable regulations" too.
But, how come states have been able to enact these "laws" and not be swiftly stuck down by SCOTUS or any other inferior court as unconsitutional?
Because the judges "deciding" these cases aren't ruling on the law, interpreting the laws that are made relative to the Constitution. In all too many cases, the judges are basically making it up as they go along, reasoning out their own jurisprudence regardless of provisions of the Constituion. They don't have will to resist their own impulses (political or otherwise), so they do what feels right, instead of doing what is right.
That's why it takes a special man/woman to be a judge. It is also the reason why we should hold Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas in such high regard: they resist their impulses about feeling good and do what's right by the law, knowing that they will have done good. And, tha't more important.
I have no idea what you are talking about, and neither do you.