We've survived violations to our rights in the past. J. Edgar Hoover pushed power past the Constitution, as did FDR and many Presidents and powerful political actors before and after them. America has been able to survive our statist encroachments. Statism was actually built into Constitutional loopholes that Hamilton insisted upon to create a Merchant State, and, since the beginning, we've had a mixture of free market, most prevalent in the 18th century, Merchant State, State Capitalism and Socialism. Our economy has been called a mixed economy since the 20th century statist encroachments began in earnest.
As a nation our leaders have never addressed interventionist advancements directly, as in announcing that government will start developing a command and control economy and intervening at will in the affairs of other countries, but they have succeeded in doing so due to a general trust of government for decades, which was inspired by Americans' committment to the USA. Once government started showing cracks, after the Big Depression, then Nixon, and then Carter, so forth and so on, Americans made a calculation as they started losing freedom and government intervened more and more. In International Relations' discussions there are three Cs when a One World Order is contemplated. The experts talk about committment, calculation and coercion when considering the ways in which such a global order can come about.
Of course, it's preferable to have committment from the people who will be subjects of the ruling order. If there's not full committment, and there would not likely be such ever, then calculation is used by the subjects to determine what they receive in return when they give up their autonomy to the those who wish to rule. If there's determination among the power elite, and if there's no widespread committment and the people don't believe they're receiving sufficient benefits to give up the freedoms the rulers are requiring they surrender, then coercion is used -- coercion is, of course, the weakest of the three, because rulers are constantly attempting to maintain control and order.
The same is basically true at the level of a single nation such as America. Once Americans began acknowledging their freedoms were being violated in various ways, they made calculations to determine if it's worth the loss of some freedoms if we get superior military protection in return or cleaner air or safer products or a stronger safety net, social security and the like, etc. It appears that Americans have made the calculation that they're willing to sacrifice freedom for security, stability, safety, equality, fairness and all the other promises made by a powerful State to justify expansion of power in a command and control economy managed by an interventionist government, plus justification of foreign military interventions in the name of national security, protection from terrorism, etc.
Freedom movements have popped up periodically, such as the Old Right, made up of freedom proponents like Roy Childs, Murray Rothbard, Albert Jay Nock, Frank Chodorov and others. They've proposed limited government a more responsbile private sector that provides solutions to social problems and a non-interventionist policy when it comes to foreign affairs -- no entanglement in the affairs of foreign countries. Although much of it was misguided, the 60s' protests were reactions to expansion and abuse of State power. The Reagan Revolution was ostensibly a freedom reaction against an interventionist government that was steadily expanding State power, although the DC establishment won out in the end, and the march of statism continued practically unabated except for the remaining resistance among the public to giant, sudden power-grabs by government -- small and steady power-grabs have been accepted as part of the calculation of received benefits as freedoms erode. Now, privacy violations are common. The military/industrial complex is not audited and does pretty much what it wants to do, as Presidents run the military like a Prince's private army, and regulations pour forth from a central plan developed in DC and dumped on the rest of the country. Government spends $110 billion on food programs alone, so the last election lets us know that at least the majority of those who voted are still okay with their calculations.
There was a nascent freedom movement that broke out clumsily and confused around 2009, lacking a strong philosophical foundation to give it consistency and clarity -- there's hope that the movement can mature and evolve into a thoughtful opposition force to statism, which has answers to why statism is destructive, and how the private sector can do many things that people think only government can handle. If this movement does grow, we'll see if Americans choose limited government and a free market in the 21st century or whether we'll settle for the shaky promises of government to take care of our most pressing problems. There's much evidence that even though many Americans have calculated that government interventions are worth the loss in freedom, government is unable to deliver on many of it's promises, especially the saftey net promises (study the problems with SS, Medicare, Medicaid). Then we'll see if government opts for the weakness of the Cs, coercion. This is the historical turn of events in countries which evolve toward statist control, even if in the beginning the controllers are benevolent and compassionate -- unlimited power changes everything, and not in a good way.