There is very little real incentive to perform a > 50% attack because you'd shake confidence, no matter what method is used for block creation.
People keep using the phrase 51% attack to try and downplay the issue, like it's just some theoretical thing that won't happen because self motivated greed will prevent it, aka the rational miner factor. Since when are rational miners considered even the top 10 security risks? Did you also forget Bitcoin is advertised as having "no trusted third parties"? Those pools that you can count with less than 5 fingers are your trusted third parties, which is why the system as is, has failed completely.
Giant pools are also way too large of an attack surface to be nationalized by governments, regulated to oblivion, demolished with TNT by order of environmental protection agency, etc. There's a billion things that can and will go wrong with them. Most likely Bitcoin will fail if it follows it's current path since it's not even close to what it's described as on the box. If it doesn't fail, the best case scenario you will get out of the mining pool centralization is "governmentcoin".
Unless all current Bitcoin development is redirected towards getting rid of the mining pools, there's really no reason to support it.
There is some higher level thinking at work here though. Most people are unable to put 1+1 together and figure out that if a global, anonymous currency was to become huge, it would most likely mean the end of central governments. Even if you're some kind of super anarchist, is that something you really want to see during your lifetime? The odds of being murdered by Obama zombies for a nickel is probably pretty high. The same central governments probably have contingency plans to to prevent this from happening, either by never allowing the centralized pools to be removed from the protocol, or just waiting and nationalizing them.