That sounds like an unfeasible expectation, to put it mildly.  By asking every participant to run a full node, all you would be doing is driving casual users away.  The option should be there for those who genuinely wish to run a non-mining node, but it shouldn't be some sort of elitist "you're not really one of us unless you meet our standards" kind of BS.  Also, way to relegate many of the smartphone users from the poorer parts of the world into the category of worthless passengers with "no skin in the game".  Your entitlement is showing. 

And again, whilst it tends to be the prevailing narrative on these boards that 2x is some sort of "attack", some would merely see it as a difference of opinion and wouldn't feel the need to "defend" Bitcoin like it was some sort of fragile infant with an autoimmune disease.  I'd like to think it's a little more resilient than that.  Think about this carefully:

What's the point in even *having* a consensus mechanism if you're too afraid to let it do its job? 

If you think it's better to put a gun to everyone's head and tell them exactly what to run, the consensus mechanism is wholly redundant.  You might as well close the source as well while you're at it.  No one can make any more forks then.  Would that make you happy?

The entire idea behind it is that you don't need trust the other network participants or "defend" the network from those you might disagree with.  Everyone runs what they want and there's no need for brigading.  The network will sort itself out.  Bitcoin doesn't require any populist uprisings to rally behind certain developers in order to function.  It doesn't need you to shelter it from a reality that isn't nearly as harsh as you make it out to be.  It's self-regulating for a reason.