Try that with a state sponsored security force.

Since the TSA is generally a federally controlled agency, you'd have to elect a majority of the House/Senate/Executive to change policy there to make it better, and literally no one will run for those offices with even a minor part of their platform being improving the TSA. Even if they had a position you liked about airport security, would you be willing to look past a difference on something like gun laws or school funding or environmental issues to vote for someone who was going to make the TSA more effective? If your answer is no, that's why people have no real hope that the government would improve the TSA.

So any government should work on improving the process if enough people are complaining and there are objective improvements to be made.

We don't have to think about which party to vote for to ensure eg. the government cares about improving lives of their citizens: they should all do that!

Do you consider "fundamental to the system" better? I don't.

However there is huge career risk to reducing regulation, easing up on "safety" rules, etc. And anyone who does that will be attacked and if possible punished if anything goes wrong.

Literally there is no incentive for bureaucracies to do better.