To start addressing this problem, I think one has to understand why someone actively supports this state of affairs. Don't start from "They're under-informed;" that's hubris (and studies show trying to reason someone out of a hard-felt feeling makes them far likelier to just tune you out than change the feeling). Consider the voter who thinks being spied on by the FBI is great. How do you reach them.
I give as an analogy nuclear weapons. People are pretty universally in agreement that the threat of global armageddon is, well, bad, and we could really minimize it if we just ditched the nukes. Even unilateral disarmament, given the massive disparity of the US stockpile vs. other stockpiles, would take a huge chunk out of the apocalypse pie-chart.
... so why is suggesting unilateral disarmament absolutely horrifying to so many people?
People vote their hearts. Dig into the feelings underpinning support for a surveillance state and address them, because if the feelings don't change the votes won't change. Propose alternatives to the surveillance state that address those feelings.
Americans just watched a faction try to take over the government with violence. There's a story that can be told there, and told one way it creates feelings that encourage more centralized surveillance, and told another way it creates feelings that encourage far, far less surveillance.