No, the claim is that civil servants are not directly responsible to the constituency. Like it or not, Representatives are elected every two years by their constituents. Representatives get to do what they want as long as their constituency is ok with it (within the bounds of their own body's rules, which they get to vote on)

That implies what, though? That the people get the government they deserve due to their unwillingness to learn and vote people out of office?

Or they get the government they want, or they don't get the government that they don't want. The later seems more often to be the way people vote.

Gerrymandered districts and two party politics where the other guy is the worse guy conspires pretty well to make sure this never happens.

Gerrymandering is an issue, but it's actually the solution to greater problems. Gerrymandering itself is performed by elected officials who, again, are responsible to their constituency. The practice can be seem undemocratic, but the two party system is an eventuality, if one party starts gaining too much power and popularity then people will just start joining that party which will create a schism which will in turn create another party. We cannot guard against a two party system.

Because one individual rep has limited power? This is a positive thing and not a negative

Pelosi is the Speaker, not some backbencher with one vote. She has enormous power, perhaps only second to the President.

It depends on what you mean by power. She has only as much power as her caucus will afford her. The role of Speaker has it's limits, and she's not really popular enough in party politics to sway the zeitgeist.