I think that the lack of any explanation of anything other than anti-government market fundamentalism since Reagan's time has left most people with no other way to understand the world. I don't think that Obama is a corporatist, but that maybe he and those around him have absorbed so much of this market stuff that they can't envision another path.
Government is We, the People making the decisions. All this nonsense about private companies being more efficient, government being bureaucratic and incompetent has infected people's minds. They're really saying that the wealthy should be making the decisions instead of the people.
Taxes are another example of this stuff. Obama uses the phrase "tax relief" and has said that taxes hurt the economy, stuff like that. Actually taxes provide the means to build a public infrastructure that enables an economy to do well... and very high top tax rates provide an incentive for business owners to think long term instead of just grabbing the quick buck and leaving behind shells of companies.
Government is us, the community. It is We, the People making decisions for ourselves instead of others making decisions for us. So I am not sure what you mean when you say government is not an effective for helping the poor.
I suggest you read my Commonweal Institute report "The Attack on Trial Lawyers and Tort Law." You will understand how this anti-lawyer stuff is really part of a larger conservative movement effort. Access to the courts is a fundamental right of democracy and the big corporations are trying to undermine that right.
It was the particular wording that got me going. In fact I was having the same argument at Huffington, responding to someone who said "The Democrats" something-or-other so I was primed. And it is something I have written about over the past few years.
You say "The Democrats" are corporate. Is John Conyers? John Edwards? Dennis Kucinich?
Is Howard Dean corporate? He's the CHAIR of the party.
How about Debra Bowen out here in my state?
Don't give me this "The Democrats are corporate" crap, please.
Some were, largely because WE were not out there aggressively supporting a progressive position, so the public heard only from conservatives. And politicians respond to the public. So what else were they supposed to do? WE were not out there donating to candidates, supporting them, even letting them know that we didn't like what was going on.
That has changed. We have started finding avoice. We have built up the blogs. And we have started building up an infrastructure of progressive organizations that are starting to reach the public with the other side of the story. (Though very few seem willing to find them even now.)
And it is starting to make a difference. So the public is starting to want to see more progressive policies and candidates.
This is a good time to make sure the point is clear that the security guards I have been writing about are not Kaiser employees and not on strike to protest any Kaiser actions. Kaiser has been and is a responsible employer.
When I ask people what "single payer" means, they think it means you have to pay all your medical bills yourself.
Please say "Medicare For All." EVERYONE understands and loves Medicare. So you start off with 100% name recognition, complete public understanding and a ton of goodwill. With "single payer" you have to start from scratch and try to explain to regular people what this obscure, strange phrasing is supposed to mean.
Little things like this can make a very big difference in winning public support. They have to understand what it means and what the benefits to THEM are before they'll support something. Otherwise they will resist it.
I agree with everything you wrote except for one. You use the words "single payer system." This is the most confusing choice of label for this...
I asked a few people what they think it means and they thought it meant that you have to pay for all your health care by yourself with no help.
Please use the name "Medicare-for-all" to describe national health care. There are a few decades of positive identification with Medicare behind us now. Everyone knows what it means, knows how it works, and loves it. So wWhy not just say that you want to extend Medicare to everyone instead of using a confusing term like "single-payer" that has zero identification and is downright scary? This is a major mistake that progressives keep making.