It's not wishful thinking. If you'll recall, the airlines required a massive bailout just to stay afloat after people just STOPPED FLYING. The procedures that were put in place afterwards were to try and make the lines as short as possible, from a revenue protection standpoint, but incrementally increasing regulations combined with no expirations on each incremental increase have slowly built rules upon rules upon rules back up to the point that lines are growing again (Witness the much lower clearance rate of the NoS vs. WTMD, for example).

If EVERYONE practiced civil disobedience at the checkpoint, if EVERYONE took the max time, if EVERYONE stood up as one and said "We're tired of being treated like common criminals for daring to want to go to Albequerque", the government would have a limited number of unappetizing responses:

1) Stop allowing opt-outs.
a) Bad from a PR Standpoint.
b) Civil Disobedience can still be done.

2) Allow the checkpoints to slow to an unbearable crawl.
a) Airlines would lose revenue and complain.
b) Frequent flyers and businesses would raise holy hell.

3) Temporarily ignore or barely perform screening requirements at busy times.
a) Exposes security theater even more as nothing more than theater
b) Gives the "Anything for Security" crowd something to complain about, not "Feeling safe"

4) CHANGE the screening requirements to look for WEI, in a quick, efficient manner, without all the folderol that can slow stuff down.