[DrThunder]

If you're referring to the Patriot Act, neither party cared. Democrats loved the war on terror just as much as any Republican. Obama loved the Patriot Act so much he EXPANDED IT.

I don't really care who was "cared" 20 years ago. There's a problem that needs to be fixed now. It's a wasted of time to whine about different people at a different time not being upset at a similar thing that was going on.

[shadowgovt]

To start addressing this problem, I think one has to understand why someone actively supports this state of affairs. Don't start from "They're under-informed;" that's hubris (and studies show trying to reason someone out of a hard-felt feeling makes them far likelier to just tune you out than change the feeling). Consider the voter who thinks being spied on by the FBI is great. How do you reach them.

I give as an analogy nuclear weapons. People are pretty universally in agreement that the threat of global armageddon is, well, bad, and we could really minimize it if we just ditched the nukes. Even unilateral disarmament, given the massive disparity of the US stockpile vs. other stockpiles, would take a huge chunk out of the apocalypse pie-chart.

... so why is suggesting unilateral disarmament absolutely horrifying to so many people?

People vote their hearts. Dig into the feelings underpinning support for a surveillance state and address them, because if the feelings don't change the votes won't change. Propose alternatives to the surveillance state that address those feelings.

Americans just watched a faction try to take over the government with violence. There's a story that can be told there, and told one way it creates feelings that encourage more centralized surveillance, and told another way it creates feelings that encourage far, far less surveillance.

[DrThunder]

I agree with most of your comment.

I do not agree with this "Americans just watched a faction try to take over the government with violence."

The think they watched someone try to take over the government because that's what the media and certain politicians wanted you to think. In no way was that a government takeover unless you're talking about the actors (cops) that opened the doors and led clueless people inside. No government takeover consists of unarmed people with zero plan, where the only person killed was one them doing nothing.

[shadowgovt]

> No government takeover consists of unarmed people with zero plan

Certainly no successful one that I can think of. But that doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt. Also, they were not unarmed (https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters... ); they were (thankfully) under-armed to deal with the resistance they encountered.

> where the only person killed was [the] one [of] them doing nothing

I'm assuming we both saw the same video. That's definitely not "doing nothing." Never was and never has been, and the question has already been litigated and put to bed.

But all that aside, to determine whether they were trying to take over the government, one need merely ask: had they succeeded in getting to the floor while the Senate was still in session, what did they want to do? What did those who spoke about their intentions say they were going to do?