> Replacing criminals and state overreach with foreign adversaries may be more salient.

For you and me, certainly. For the members of Congress you need to convince of this? They ARE the state. Outside of a few ideological libertarians, protecting the people from the state is not on their agenda.

> For the members of Congress you need to convince of this? They ARE the state

We agree in a limited sense. (There are lots of politicians who genuinely believe in curtailing state power.)

Arguments about state overreach won’t convince a power-hungry vote chaser. Talk about foreign adversaries will.

What's lots, and how much does it cost to change their opinion?

How much do they want to be friends with the 3-letter agencies affected by their decisions?

Those would be the same ones demanding christian based laws?

> Replacing criminals and state overreach with foreign adversaries may be more salient.

Or if you're in the US, depending on your audience, Donald Trump or Joe Biden.

On what occasion have any of these new cyberattacking boogeymen-on-steroids done anything to anyone?

I'm going to continue to worry about criminal fraud and my own government, rather than ghosts with foreign names.

> what occasion have any of these new cyberattacking boogeymen-on-steroids done anything to anyone?

One of them is invading its neighbor.

> I'm going to continue to worry about criminal fraud and my own government

That's fine and these are things to worry about. But if the argument wants staying power, it needs to be adaptable.

Uh, Colonial Pipeline? HSE Ireland? Stuxnet?

Take your pick, it isn't like there's a shortage!

The sheer amount of Chinese and Russian IPs showing up in my SSH logs indicate the answer is 'plenty'.