> You seem to imagine that the public overwhelmingly opposes surveillance but politicians are simply ignoring its wishes. Not so! I think that the number of pe

> You seem to imagine that the public overwhelmingly opposes surveillance but politicians are simply ignoring its wishes. Not so! I think that the number of people who care about surveillance is small, and the number willing to change their vote because of it is microscopic. But, you know what? Nobody said lobbying for political change is easy. > If you could find the votes to enact such a strategy in a way that politicians would understand they were being punished for surveillance and not just subject to the irrationality of the American people like they always are, wouldn't it be much simpler to rally those people around support for a candidate that will actually dismantle the national security apparatus? It would be simpler, but it would be less likely to succeed. Even if you find such a candidate, and even if they were sincere in their promises, they're still likely to end up steamrollered by all the other politicians who don't meet those standards. If you change the incentives, though, you've changed the entire system and now all the insincere politicians -- which is 95% of them -- are on your side. Victory will inevitably follow.