You're not thinking that if the Democrats manage to take the White House, that this situation will improve - are you? I mean, most of this damage was done when Pres. Obama was in the White House and the Congress skewed more toward Democrats. The idea that the Democrats will defend our privacy and 4th Amendment is absurd.
But still, yes, I feel democrats have a better chance of at least listening to constituent concerns about privacy. The GOP wallies about small government, except for the military and they view the NSA/FBI/CIA as the same.
But even if not--I don't see it improving with another R in power either. Or do you?
Trump's views on privacy are obvious and awful, yes - he has Sessions as AG.
But Dianne Feinstein is one of the fiercest surveillance advocates in Congress. Hillary Clinton had vastly more support from intelligence agencies than Trump did, and refused to condemn what was described in the Snowden releases.
Meanwhile, Rand Paul ended bulk phone record collection for a few hours in 2015, defying much of both parties to do so. He filibustered over drone strikes, and promised to restrict NSA searches if he was elected.
There's a lot to dislike about Rand Paul, and libertarians aren't the only people opposing surveillance - Bernie Sanders made similar promises from the far opposite end of the spectrum.
But I think framing this as "bad under Democrats, hopeless under Republicans" makes it harder to address the problem. The mainstream of both parties are similarly awful, even if the Democrats talk a bit more softly about it, while the fringes of both parties are often strong surveillance opponents.
Referring to Libertarian and left-libertarian as opposite ends of the spectrum is a grave disservice, and feeds directly into our contemporary fallacious polarization.
Either view it as a two-dimensional circle, or just ignore the secondary "Left"-"Right" marketing and analyze the primary characteristic of libertarian-authoritarian.
I certainly agree that framing political beliefs themselves as linear is misleading, though. I should have been clearer about that.
It's entirely possible to say "this is a false dichotomy, both parties are fundamentally hopeless on this issue" and also say "third party candidates are completely unelectable".
I'm not entirely fatalistic; I think "a major party greatly realigns its views on privacy" is possible, if hard and unlikely. I mentioned Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders as contrarian voices each pulling their party away from bulk surveillance, and I hope we'll see more such voices in the future. A realignment looks increasingly possible, and increasingly necessary. But I honestly don't think "third parties are powerless" should be seen as a reason to have any hope at all for our existing options.
Partisanship is one hell of a drug.
As well as politicized and weaponized.