This is a powerful and important argument. I have two quibbles, though.
The first relates to your point that people are not rational beings in the way that Elizabeth Warren is. Absolutely; it’s a mistaken assumption that political junkies make, especially progressives: “If I provide a rational point with solid factual evidence, everyone will agree with it.”
But I think the reason people don’t accept rational arguments isn’t that they are stressed or overwhelmed with too much information; it’s that people are inherently irrational. Dostoevsky points this out in “Notes from Underground.” The narrator of that work argues that people will avoid reason action, even though doing so goes against their self-interest because they prefer freedom over the tyranny of always doing what’s best for themselves. Dostoevsky is less bleak than the narrator, however; in the second half of “Notes,” he suggests that there is an alternative that is neither self-destructive nor confining: love. Not necessarily romantic love but empathy or compassion for the suffering of others. Love is neither rational (in our self-interest) nor a surrender of freedom. Your essay about socialism versus capitalism presents a similar opposition: love for others (socialism) versus a self-destructive focus on one’s ego in the guise of a search for freedom (capitalism).
Americans think they’re protecting their freedom by opposing single-payer healthcare, but their real motive is spiteful — they’re willing to sacrifice their own well-being in order to deny a benefit to others. But at the conscious level, they think no-care means more freedom.
Because of its emphasis on competition, politics amplifies this rush to meanness. People are tribal not because they love the members of their tribe but because they love tribalism. Like sports fans, they want to see their rival team crushed. I used to think people complained about voting for the lesser of two evils because they didn’t have a good choice. That’s not the case. People want to vote against someone; they want a villain not a hero.
You cannot use a rational argument to persuade people to act out of love for others. You cannot legislate compassion. Giving a child a nutrition textbook will not inspire a taste for broccoli.
Team Warren has to convince ordinary citizens that no-care or climate change or corporate greed or war is more harmful for themselves and their family than a system that helps everyone. Language is important (as conservative theorist Frank Luntz has shown) because word choice speaks to our emotional not rational side, but a catchy phrase alone won’t do the trick (the Impossible Burger has to taste more like beef than soybeans). Ronald Reagan (“the great communicator”) didn’t overwhelm people with graphs; he told stories about how individuals benefited from his policies (though they didn’t really benefit — Reagan should have been called “the great liar”).
Team Warren can make a compelling (and truthful) case for their goals. But they should model themselves on the literary club, not the debate team.
Second quibble: “Not a single nation with good healthcare, whether Canada, France, or Germany, has no private healthcare.” Warren and Sanders don’t propose doing away with private healthcare; they propose eliminating private healthcare insurance. (But they’re not doing a good job of making this distinction either; they need to show how private healthcare insurance means worse and more costly healthcare for individuals and their families.)
Overall, these are quibbles not disagreements. You have crafted an emotionally appealing (and convincing) argument. I hope Team Warren reads it and reverses their downturn.
