Editor: Many candidates say that if elected they will reduce governmental intrusion into voters’ lives.
Conclusion (thus)
Governmental intrusion into the lives of voters will rarely be substantially reduced over time in a democracy.
Evidence
Voters elect politicians who promise that the government will provide assistance to solve their most pressing problems.
Governmental assistance comes from taxes, which can be considered a form of governmental intrusion.
Evaluate
Sometimes, in order to Strengthen, we need to figure out how we would weaken the argument.
Given that ... The politicians we elect promise that the government will provide assistance, which theoretically will intrude on people's lives via taxes
How could we argue that ... Intrusion into the lives of voters will OFTEN be substantially reduced over time in a democracy?
We might say that, sure all government action costs taxpayer money, but there are better and worse versions of spending taxpayer money. Maybe a newly elected politician's plans for government assistance involve LESS taxpayer money than the previously elected politicians' plans? Even though there is still intrusion, via taxation, there would be LESS intrusion.
We might also say that certain actions politicians take in office, while costing taxpayer money, are targeted at removing other forms of intrusion. Like maybe it would cost taxpayer money to develop a spy agency that doesn't wire tap citizens' phones. The taxes would increase intrusion into citizens' finances, but the agency would decrease intrusion into citizens' privacy by no longer wire tapping their phones.
Finally, we might say even though politicians promise to do bold (and expensive) corrective measures, they never actually do anything in office. Bills can't get passed because of partisan gridlock, so intrusion lessens over time.
Goal
Let's look for an answer that rules out one of our objections or gives us some other reason to think that intrusion will keep going up over time (or at least stay around the same).