I didn't say "fringe group" I said "fringe party." The Tea Party organized itself as a faction of the Republican party, which enabled it to get national credibility. In our first past the post voting system, not having an (R) or (D) next to your name basically ensures you'll not get elected, so you have to caucus with one of those parties. Your only concern is about which one.
Now, given that, it makes sense to target the Republican party. The party is in a period of disunity, and as a natural tendency Republicans are more amenable to arguments based on distrust of government. Democrats will oppose government when they dislike negative effects that they can see actually happening (e.g. as the Iraq war dragged on), but arguments along the lines of "we shouldn't trust government with these powers, even if you can't see the negative effects yet" work better on Republicans.
Moreover, people don't care about "privacy." Abstract arguments about "privacy" aren't going to get votes. You have to put those abstract arguments in concrete terms that people understand and that relate to things they care about. Paint the issue as giving the liberal administration the ability to snoop on conservative political organizations ("Obama is reading the Tea Party's e-mails!"). Paint the issue as secularists being able to snoop on religious organizations ("Obama is reading your church's e-mails!"). Figure out how to tie it to something Biblical and you're cooking with fire.
This is not a cynical argument, by the way. The whole reason to be worried about surveillance is because of its chilling effect on freedom of political assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. "Obama is reading your cypherpunk IRC logs!" would resonate with a lot of people on HN--but ordinary people don't care about cypherpunks or pirates or groups like that. But there are groups they care about. The chilling effect of surveillance impacts cypherpunks and pirates and anti-abortionists and religious fundamentalists alike. If you don't caucus with those groups, you'll never establish a coalition large enough to have any political impact.
Without speaking to your overall proposal, which may be strategically sound, I have a few questions on the details:
> "but arguments along the lines of ['distrust government'] work better on Republicans"
Forgive me, as someone raised and educated outside of the US, I sometimes get a bit confused. Which party thinks the government should regulate abortion as a crime, and regulate which kinds of partnership qualify for marriage benefits? Which party thinks government should be trusted with truly massive budgets to use the US military to coerce other countries (as a possible measure of this, consider on whose watch the military budget grew, and on whose it shrank)?
By their works shall ye know them, I think? I concluded that the Republicans were the party of big government. Did I get confused again?
> "Paint the issue as giving the liberal administration the ability to snoop on conservative political organizations"
Well, you can paint it any way you like. In practice, I haven't heard of any abuses of surveillance aimed at political conservatives, maybe excepting the KKK (who you may or may not see as "political conservatives" anyway). Just look at how they spent the budget for COINTELPRO, a 15-year-plus abuse of FBI power to suppress political "subversion" (i.e. dissent with the status quo); 85% of that budget was spent on things like suppressing civil rights groups and anti-war protesters. Admittedly, COINTELPRO is going back a long way; if you know of specific abuses that are more recent, I'd certainly consider that more-interesting evidence.
> "This is not a cynical argument"
This, ultimately, is the part I'm questioning. I think this proposal's strategic suitability rests crucially on the distorted image that Republican voters have of the Republican party, and of the overall public discourse.
You have to be careful to distinguish between subjective and objective elements of policy. When couching arguments aimed at particular people, you have to base your arguments on those peoples' subjective perceptions, not the objective ramifications of their ideas.
> Which party thinks the government should regulate abortion as a crime and regulate which kinds of partnership qualify for marriage benefits?
Religious Republicans don't view this as "big government." You can make sense of the position by thinking about where people think law comes from. Most secularists believe that law is created by governments (though many libertarians espouse belief in "natural law.") If you're a Christian, you generally believe that there is also a higher law that comes from God. Laws concerning murder, reproduction, and marriage, exist, rooted in the Bible, independent of state and federal laws on those subjects. Now, to the extent that state and federal law is consistent with Biblical law, government is "merely" acknowledging inherent law. Attempts to make state and federal law inconsistent with Biblical law are perceived as "big government" attempts to override higher law.
> Which party thinks government should be trusted with truly massive budgets to use the US military to coerce other countries
Most Republicans perceive defense as one of the few legitimate functions of government.
> In practice, I haven't heard of any abuses of surveillance aimed at political conservatives
That's more or less irrelevant.
> I think this proposal's strategic suitability rests crucially on the distorted image that Republican voters have of the Republican party, and of the overall public discourse.
There are two parts to my argument: 1) that the Republican party is a more fertile ground for opposition to surveillance; 2) that privacy advocates need to translate their abstract principles into concrete issues that voters care about. It's the second part that I'm saying is "not cynical," to the extent that there is nothing cynical about trying to find common ground with people whose politics you might otherwise dislike. The former argument is neither cynical nor not cynical--it's just a fact to take into consideration that Republicans trust government less than Democrats, even if they do trust government with certain issues (like defense).
Yes, I'm aware that typical Republican voters typically believe a number of obviously-false things, like thinking "big government" doesn't include a bunch of things that it obviously does include.
Including spending almost as much on military as the entire rest of the world put together (44.5% of world total, and btw twice the per-capita budget of any sane country), and using that enormous military to invade countries that do not pose a threat. I'm not even arguing (here) against this military budget, nor the adventurism. I'm arguing against calling it small-government, and against calling it "defense", because it's obviously neither.
Anyway, that got off-track. To return to the point, I'm perfectly "careful to distinguish between subjective and objective elements", thank you very much. But given that the subjective elements, on this particular subject, are laughably disconnected from reality, it's pretty cynical to exploit that.
I understand the "two parts to [your] argument". I would have thought that was clear. And I'm agnostic on the effectiveness of the proposed strategy. However, I think both parts are cynical.
Now, given that, it makes sense to target the Republican party. The party is in a period of disunity, and as a natural tendency Republicans are more amenable to arguments based on distrust of government. Democrats will oppose government when they dislike negative effects that they can see actually happening (e.g. as the Iraq war dragged on), but arguments along the lines of "we shouldn't trust government with these powers, even if you can't see the negative effects yet" work better on Republicans.
Moreover, people don't care about "privacy." Abstract arguments about "privacy" aren't going to get votes. You have to put those abstract arguments in concrete terms that people understand and that relate to things they care about. Paint the issue as giving the liberal administration the ability to snoop on conservative political organizations ("Obama is reading the Tea Party's e-mails!"). Paint the issue as secularists being able to snoop on religious organizations ("Obama is reading your church's e-mails!"). Figure out how to tie it to something Biblical and you're cooking with fire.
This is not a cynical argument, by the way. The whole reason to be worried about surveillance is because of its chilling effect on freedom of political assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. "Obama is reading your cypherpunk IRC logs!" would resonate with a lot of people on HN--but ordinary people don't care about cypherpunks or pirates or groups like that. But there are groups they care about. The chilling effect of surveillance impacts cypherpunks and pirates and anti-abortionists and religious fundamentalists alike. If you don't caucus with those groups, you'll never establish a coalition large enough to have any political impact.