Your conceptualization of how the world works and mine are so not on the same page, they aren't even in the same book.
So while what you say is no doubt true, it's got nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm not expecting universal health care by June of next year or something.
You start by just getting people to say "Yeah, you know, that makes sense. I would support that." And when enough people can agree with that idea, eventually you get candidates who say "I have this terrific idea (parrots back to the world what the world is already saying is a good idea)."
If there were a general consensus that this is something all Americans like, you can bet money we would have a presidential candidate who not only supports the idea but already has a well-thought-out blueprint developed for how to implement it. In fact, you would likely have two candidates competing for your vote based on the idea that "My universal health care plan is better than theirs! Vote for me, Joe Schmoe, the guy with the better universal health care plan!"
i wish that were the case, but there is a strong argument that it doesnt work that way. Unfortunately instead it looks like the consensus amongst citizens is largely irrelevant. this study in particular comes to mind. https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-...
You know, a lot of poor people spend their time on Twitter and what not saying ugly things like "Eat the rich" because they feel powerless and feel like no rich people would ever listen to them and so forth. And then they are all shocked when the rich don't give a damn about folks who are openly hostile to them.
And then some poor people have hobbies like becoming the (apparently) first woman to make the leader board of HN shortly after getting themselves off the street and back into housing. (That would be me, in case that needs to be said.) And some people close to me are of the opinion that me running my big fat mouth on HN while homeless and earning a pittance online while sleeping in a tent is why tablets are no longer expensive shiny toys for rich people and are actually productive and affordable for ordinary people with sucktastic lives.
So, studies aside, you will have to excuse me for sticking to my guns here. My apologies for having no idea how to convince you I'm the one that's right in this case.
We live in a world where almost half of Americans have so little empathy that they are enthralled by the idea of putting non-white children in cages and the American political system is completely indifferent to the policy preferences of the average person[0].
It's beyond the bounds of reasonable probability both that a majority of Americans would develop enough empathy to support the idea of a universal social safety net and that policy elites could be motivated to implement such a consensus.
So while what you say is no doubt true, it's got nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm not expecting universal health care by June of next year or something.
You start by just getting people to say "Yeah, you know, that makes sense. I would support that." And when enough people can agree with that idea, eventually you get candidates who say "I have this terrific idea (parrots back to the world what the world is already saying is a good idea)."
If there were a general consensus that this is something all Americans like, you can bet money we would have a presidential candidate who not only supports the idea but already has a well-thought-out blueprint developed for how to implement it. In fact, you would likely have two candidates competing for your vote based on the idea that "My universal health care plan is better than theirs! Vote for me, Joe Schmoe, the guy with the better universal health care plan!"