[dictum]

Speculation:

1. American citizens do not believe the people running the US government are or could become corrupt;

2. They haven't considered, or are not bothered by the fact that their habits will be shaped by the fact that someone is watching;

3. They believe the infrastructure will be used against anything that represent existential threats (terrorism), grave injustice (child pornography) or grave moral threat (a fringe political group);

4. Despite the fact that the definition of terrorism is quite fluid and could be used to target any stand against the government (as opposed to against the country itself), they don't want another 9/11 and see the apparatus as necessary to prevent it;

5. They believe the USG chooses sides in international conflicts based on moral considerations, and not realpolitik which often hurts them later (see: Al Qaeda)—or are comfortable with amoral positions as long as they benefit the country in the bottom line;

6. They do not believe those in power can change their minds in the future;

7. They don't believe in authorities framing innocent persons;

8. My favorite, one-track point of discussion here: Americans are slightly xenophobic. So they're fairly happy to know the US has a big machine to track and all those pesky foreigners and keep their countries nice and obedient.

And it's not like the beliefs are unfounded. The US government has generally been good for its citizens. The only truly harmful actions of the USG have been targeted at other countries. You don't feel threatened until a drone kills your teenage son. But while your government does that thousands of miles away from you, it's easy to be forgiving of all that.

Americans are not used to systemic corruption and tyranny, so they don't have the framework to consider their state becoming authoritarian or totalitarian.

[john_b]

Regarding #1, if you've looked at Americans' confidence in Congress lately [1] it seems exceedingly unlikely that Americans perceive their elected officials as incorruptible. In fact, that has mostly been the case post-Watergate.

> "Americans are not used to systemic corruption and tyranny, so they don't have the framework to consider their state becoming authoritarian or totalitarian."

I agree, and I'll add that since the US is still a relatively young country whose present form of government has been in existence since shortly after its inception, Americans have trouble mentally disassociating their opinion of America--its culture, its people, its common beliefs--with their opinion of American government. In countries where citizens have lived to see multiple governments come and go, this is much easier to do. Americans, however, seem to have a hard time loving their country but hating their government, even when their government actively works to undermine and destroy some of the best qualities of their country.

[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/163052/americans-confidence-congr...

[rayiner]

In a 2013 poll, people who could name their own Congressman approved of them 2 to 1: http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-ow.... This is basically the most telling poll out of any. The people who can name their Congressman are probably the people who vote regularly, and out of those people, the vast majority support maintaining the status quo.

[jlgreco]

It is never their politician that is the problem. Its all those other politicians you see. Nevermind that a good portion of those "other politicians" are from the same party and more or less vote the same way...

My hypothesis is that people are (mostly) not subjected to the election time advertising campaigns of other (nearly identical) politicians. Their politician is from a small town just like theirs and has a cute dog and a nice family! That other senator from the next state over? Who knows, he's almost certainly a scumbag.

Advertising works; film at eleven...

[john_b]

Interesting, thanks for the link. There are very likely some hometown bias effects as well, but my speculation is that Congress as a whole is judged by different standards than a person's congressional representative. The former, I would imagine, would tend to be judged by its actions (and how they are portrayed by others), while an individual congressman can be judged based on how well a person identifies with him or her (something not possible to do with a large heterogeneous group of people).

Whatever the cause, it's a fascinating dissonance.

[rayiner]

If I'm a Republican, and I have a Republican congressman, I like him because he represents my views, for the most part. I dislike Congress as a whole because half of it disagrees with my views, and the half that does agree with them is hamstrung by the half that does not.

Despite the rhetoric of "both parties are the same" people really only care about a few issues, which the parties differ on: taxes, welfare, religion, education, social issues, etc. I just got hassled on the street today by a college-aged male to support planned parenthood. Who do you think he votes for? Why? What does he think of Congress?

[diminoten]

Nothing has happened to the "average" American citizen yet as a result of this. No one's gone to jail, no one's been arrested, no one's been "silenced".

Combine that with the general US notion (a notion existent since the Munroe Doctrone in the early 19th century) of isolationism, and you've got an explanation for why we're generally okay with this.