I understand what you mean and I partly agree, but I meant actually something slightly different.

If a candidate like Kennedy proposes to accumulate lots of Bitcoins, he does this mainly because he has some target voters in mind: a part of the Bitcoiners.
If the Bitcoiners however signal him that they aren't interested in that proposal, then he probably will see that he doesn't benefit from more voters if he proposes such a thing. And he probably won't go ahead with this proposal.

Ways to signal this could be for example a Bitcoin Magazine op-ed with a similar argumentation like mine in the OP, or even Satoshi appearing again like when some media suspected Dorian Nakamoto to be him, saying that the day governments own more than a million coins, he sells his 3 (?) millions. (well, the last one was a joke but I hope you get what I mean)

Of course if for example a government initiates a study and the result is that Bitcoin will increase in value and it's rational for their Central Bank to buy and hold a large amount, then it's different. Then there's not much you can do (perhaps a mass protest, in some countries it helps). But in the current situation we have candidates trying to get Bitcoiners on board with supposedly uber-bullish proposals, and in this situation, I believe Bitcoiners do have power to change these politicians' mind. If they wanted (and that's the problem ... most are probably more interested in the pump such an announcement could trigger).