For us foreigners, knowing that America has strong democratic roots, it is obvious (and worrying) that the majority of american citizens actually agree with that.
And yet, the vast majority of US citizens still agrees. I mean, they have the right to bear arms so that when they strongly disagree with their government, they can form an army and overthrow it (or something, whatever that amendment is for). If not that, at the very least they can strongly protest against the decisions and policy made, vote for a third party and break the two-party system, or vote / demand the voting and government system to be upturned to stop having to choose for the lesser or two evils in the form of a single man who will get most of the blame and responsibility for poor governmental decisions.
That's because it is exactly the situation. Nobody is "held ransom" by anybody. But voters that think like you - low-information voters that can vote for anybody provided that he is "our guy" because "their guy" is The Devil himself - are exactly the reason why it happens again and again. And will happen until the majority abandons such mentality - which I personally wouldn't expect happening any time soon.
Voters that think like me live in a multipolar democracy that currently has a minority government in power. It's a tacit weakness of the US system that there can only be two viable parties. "If everyone changed and voted for a third person" is not a retort, because it still requires everyone jumping on the same bandwagon to effect a win; it'll just be a different brand of wagon.
It's a two party system, but the two parties don't have to be the same ones that are their now.
I don't understand the "viable alternative" arguement. You are saying "I won't vote for who I really want to vote, because they'll never win, because everyone else won't vote for them" <--- Is that what you mean? That seems self defeating.
Two viable parties are plenty enough if they are real parties and not a collection of people that use different-colored jerseys to play the same game. Unfortunately, right now majority of voter will vote for "their guy" almost no matter what, which lets "their guy" very broad license on any bad behavior. If the voters would say "either you put a leash on NSA or we're not voting for you, period" - then things may have been going in different direction. But voters don't do that - if you see, for example, how many voters of party A supported government surveillance when party A is in power and when party B is in power, the difference is depressingly significant. Because if "our guys" do it, it must be good, but if "their guys" do it, it must be bad. That's how we get into such a mess.
The problem is Obama needs swing voters, and swing voters tend to vote kneejerk on national security. If he follows his personal values, he'll alienate them. It's a mess.
Well, as a republic, the government is usually about 2 years out of sync with the public: we won't actually get a chance to yell at them until next election.