Then he was made Speaker and literally overnight, flipped. In his words "I went to the SCIF and got the confidential briefing from sort of the other perspective on that, to understand the necessity of Section 702 of FISA and how important it is for national security. And it gave me a different perspective."
What his "briefing" was we can only guess. But there is a pattern on BOTH sides of the aisle they people are against mass surveillance, until they are put into positions of power and access to compartmentalized, classified info - and then they aren't. (for the record please dont interpret this as defense of anyone aforementioned, if you think that you're misreading me)
It seems like there are two plausible explanations for this.
The first is that they have a list of atrocities allegedly prevented by the system and most politicians are too witless or spineless to ask the question of whether they could also have been prevented in a variety of other ways.
The second is that they're using the system to e.g. influence public opinion / elections and then once they feast their eyes on the one ring, most politicians aren't sufficiently inclined to throw it into the volcano.
If there is widespread illegal spying, any current or future public figure would have to be a priority.
Publish your bank accounts.
Publish your private messages to friends, family, partner.
These idiots who say "nothing to hide" usually have the most to hide, and lose. And they can't see how something yesterday was legal and today isn't, can still be used against you.
Let’s look at the voting record.
The majority of house Democrats opposed being up debate on the FISA section 702 extension.
19 house Republicans joined the majority democrats in opposing the extension.
I’d say this still paints a picture of a Democratic Party being far less willing to extend FISA, and actually being majority opposed.
H. Res. 1175, 119th Congress
When the other guys have control of the government, it is to your party's advantage to deny additional powers to the government. When your guys are in power, vote away to add more power to that. That's just human nature, and has been a staple of political history since the founding of American democracy.
It's because the overwhelming majority of people, including the large majority of 'educated, "informed', Democrat voters', remain even as of 2026 far too tribal and addicted to cheering for the team they've been cheering for.
Another thing is that facing this reality is very scary. It's much easier to sleep at night if you believe that most of it isn't a show, including most of the tribe they've been voting for. The alternative is to admit that most of it is all one big theatre, and they've been scammed for their whole lives. That's another thing, admitting one has been scammed is painful and makes many feel like they're stupid, that they should've known better. Most much rather just not think about it too hard and believe "in the good of people".
In a sense I'm surprised that you're surprised as it's quite basic and well-studied human psychology.
Of course in reality the situation is even worse, as pessimizer aptly points out in a sibling comment.
It feels like you might be doing the same thing, just in the other direction. Any time a political party does something that is positive for Americans, it should be cheered and rewarded.
I still remember 62 Democrats voting against the Patriot Act while being labelled as traitors. We can cynically call them theatrics, or we could reward them for doing what is right in order to promote them doing more of the right things. The positive response to incentives is a basic and well-studied human psychology.
That should not be rewarded, it should be punished. Ironically, it's even more harmful than voting in favor of it when it's going to pass. It's literally the worst thing one can do, because it muddies the waters.
The very few who clearly would vote against it even if it might not pass, yes, those should be rewarded.
The mismatched quotes are bothering me more than they ought to. :P
Not to distract from your main point, of course. You’re right. Democracy does allow the public to have some effect on policy but primarily it’s a mechanism for manufacturing the consent of the governed.
The most revealing part of the cycle comes around about once a decade, when for two years, the same party holds the White House and a majority in both houses of congress. They can pass whatever they really want and can't blame the other party when the things they've loudly claimed they stand for in every election, don't actually change. That's the only time those who are paying attention get to clearly see the difference between what the party claims to stand for when campaigning and what they really stand for. It's a sobering lesson and both parties do it equally.
That's when we see some extreme stage management to obfuscate the 'long con' both parties are running. Yes, a few things get passed but it's amazing how little of their long-time agenda really becomes law (or becomes law that's loop-holed and/or nerfed). It's so surprising how many politicians in the majority party suddenly discover rationalizations to not vote for a bill their party supports and which they should be for. Weirdly, these bills always fail to pass by just one or two votes. What are the odds of that happening - over and over again and only during those super-majority years?
Somehow, the politicians in the majority party from the 'safest' districts are the ones who suddenly find rationalizations to vote against what they loudly campaigned on (and will shamelessly campaign on again). Why is it only the politicians who stand little risk of losing their seat in the next election? Conversely, the politicians from the districts most at risk of losing to the other party somehow find the "courage of their principles" and don't sell out on traditional 'party-line' campaign issues. Ultimately, the big-money lobbyists feeding both political machines don't care how their goals are achieved or who votes for what. All that matters is any strongly worded law that goes against their interests either fails to pass by one vote or gets watered-down in committee and then passed.
The last thing that Republicans want is another America First libertarian troublemaker in Congress, and the last thing that Democrats want is some lecturing lefty. It's about business, not beliefs. Also, it's probably increasingly about blackmail.
When this math somehow fails (which happens every once and a while if somebody surprises them), it throws everything into chaos.
I have learned that "overwhelmingly against" is a useless concept in politics. The important question is "do they care about it enough to sway their vote?"
There is probably overwhelming support for Ukraine to defend itself in the US (and Europe), but very few people are willing to change their vote based on Ukrainian interests over their own {financial security, culture war, pet issue (abortion, guns, Epstein List, etc)}. If it's not a top-5 issue, it's not relevant to a political campaign.
2A voters and rabid anti-choice voters are polarized enough to actually show up at the capital or threaten their representatives. Extremely few people will dot at for issues lower down the priority list.
Rand Paul seems to be coasting on his father's reputation of having libertarian principles, while mainly sticking his head up for "culture war" bullshit. His main skill seems to be finely walking this line - show me a libertarian cause he openly supports that bucks a "culture war" narrative.
And I have no idea why you would have even mentioned Hawley. In general every politician talks a good game appealing to some libertarian causes (because most individuals want freedom, duh!), while readily supporting authoritarianism in some way or another.
(Props to Wyden on this issue, though)
> There’s still a sizable portion of the [Democratic] party as of right now that is against surveillance powers in a way that doesn’t really exist on the [Republican] side.
Majority of Democrats voted not to extend FISA, only a small handful of Republicans joined them to block debate on the bill.