You need both.

Technology alone cannot solve political problems. The technology can be banned.

Technology can, however, raise the difficulty for sub-components of a government that are wanting to push the limits and do things outside the boundaries of the politically agreed upon systems. Encryption can't stop the NSA if it has widespread political support because the encryption can be banned. But right now intelligence agencies are absolutely hurting, because what they're doing is highly controversial and blocking them with encryption is not at illegal. If the political debate is won, even if it's just a partial win, then they're forced back inside their box for a long time to come.

Governments can ban anything they like but the ban doesn't mean much if they cannot feasibly enforce it. Such is the lesson of the War on Drugs: the government comes in and makes trouble for people from time to time, but otherwise they simply haven't got a clue, and for the most part people just live their lives as they please and ignore the laws they don't agree with.

I'm glad there are people fighting the political fights too, though I can't imagine where they get the patience. I certainly have nothing to offer in that arena.

I take your point about the NSA, but it doesn't appear that political action will stop them either, because they are happy to ignore political constraints (and lie to Congress about it, for example) and simply do whatever their technological capabilities allow them to.

Yes, but that's why strong encryption is such a strong force to stop them. They operate outside the political sphere at the moment. It's questionable how long that can last.

A war on encryption would be much easier to enforce than a war on drugs because there are such fewer sources, and there's not a big market for its use.