There is an asymmetry. And they take historical legacy seriously. If you spend trillions of dollars and erode fundamental freedoms to protect people in the a

There is an asymmetry. And they take historical legacy seriously. If you spend trillions of dollars and erode fundamental freedoms to protect people in the aftermath of 9/11, the worst kind of objective case is you were maybe a bit misguided but your heart was in the right place and terrorism like 9/11 was unprecedented... Maybe it will cost too much, but nobody cares about the costs any more. If you dismantle the security apparatus and there is any notable terrorism, you are history's goat. Plus don't forget how many people are paid through that system. Plus, I find it difficult to really know where the public opinion is on this kind of stuff. The "no compromise" abortion position is becoming a bit more fringe and as such, politicians will say stuff to pander to the fringe but they typically don't act on it. Encryption and mass surveillance might be a big deal to "fringes"