Counterpoint: this approach is evidence of how utterly fucked we are as a society. That's because the ONLY motivating factor for any policy action or item is "but what about ME?" It's the "Leopards Eating People's Faces" problem, nationwide.
Government action X hurts the fuck out of person Y. Who cares? In fact, it's worse than "who cares" -- it's "awesome! Suck it, other guy!" It's only when Government action X ends up hurting YOU that you say "wait, Government action X is bad!"
The dominant social dynamic in the US is -- for example -- people only worry about massive losses in the availability of healthcare when it hits them. When THEIR hospital closes, when THEIR medicare coverage evaporates, etc.
The contra-approach -- one that is functionally dead in this country -- is that people should worry about massive losses in the availability of healthcare that hit their neighbors and fellow countrymen. We should ALL want Lorene and Cletus to have access to basic healthcare, because a healthy commonwealth is a good thing. It's an objectively good thing. It doesn't matter whether it directly benefits me or not.
We should want a government that doesn't shit on basic constitutional rights because that is bad for the commonwealth, and destructive of basic governing principles that are social positives as a whole.
TLDR; the approach above is just more of "all that matters is the 'me' good, zero consideration for the common good."