The people who talk about opposing mass surveillance are, on average, better educated and higher paid than the average American. When they can't bother to show

The people who talk about opposing mass surveillance are, on average, better educated and higher paid than the average American. When they can't bother to show up, it's noted. It’s expected, because they are a minute fraction of the population and concentrated on the coasts. They are not needed to win elections, and generally have the most to lose through radical action. In order for something to be divided it must first exist as a unit. It takes a shockingly-small number of people organizing to a shockingly-little extent to exert change on representatives. Particularly if those people are geographically spread out. It depends on what that change is. If it’s some minor policy issue or a social issue, you can be right. If it touches the MIC then frankly you haven’t paid attention to the last century of American politics. We are divided, and we are conquered, and showing up at your shindig isn’t changing that. For most people life is too hard and their place in society is too tenuous to care so deeply about mass surveillance. If you want them to care, improve their lives in tangible ways first. People struggling with two jobs and a mountain of debt, who are one hospitalization away from bankruptcy have more immediate concerns.