In democracies with multi-party systems you have two voting rounds. In first every party presents a candidate. If anyone gets over 50% of votes he wins and that's that. If no one gets more than 50% two candidates with most votes go to second round.

In U.S. you have only one round and usually it's super close. If 3rd party candidate enters the race and gets even 1% of Democrat votes the Republican will win for sure. That's why Bernie took part in Democratic primaries. His only chance was to win those and run as Democrat candidate. That's also why Tea Party and MAGA movements were integrated into Republican party even though they started outside of it. If you want 3rd party candidates to run in elections you would have to change the system completely.

The cowboys are probably the more at divisive team in the country.

Anywhere socialism has existed, it has done so under the threat of global capitalism which is led by the United States. The countries you listed are only able to maintain their wealth and relative comfort by taking advantage of the global south. They benefit from obscuring that relationship so that the people who see that benefit, don't have to reckon with the extent of it and how it enables the oppression of all of us and holds us back as a whole.

Today, the global North drains from the South commodities worth $2.2 trillion per year, in Northern prices. For perspective, that amount of money would be enough to end extreme poverty, globally, fifteen times over.

Over the whole period from 1960 to today, the drain totalled $62 trillion in real terms. If this value had been retained by the South and contributed to Southern growth, tracking with the South’s growth rates over this period, it would be worth $152 trillion today.

These are extraordinary sums. For the global North (and here we mean the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Japan, Korea, and the rich economies of Europe), the gains are so large that, for the past couple of decades, they have outstripped the rate of economic growth. In other words, net growth in the North relies on appropriation from the rest of the world.

Source

Let me give you the quick and dirty, oversimplified rundown of how that relationship plays out:

Power, under capitalism, resides in capital, which isn't just money but also resources and property. In order to maintain power, capitalism requires infinite and continuous growth, which of course requires more and more resources to sustain.

Say a given country decides it would like to own its resources nationally and use the wealth generated by those resources to support the growth and welfare of their own people. Capitalist nations are able to wield state power against those countries whenever they encounter this sort of difficulty. This includes leveraging state and capitalist media to run propaganda campaigns, which sour public perception of that country's national leadership; funding coups and covert operations against them; giving money and training to militant minority resistance groups; and when all else fails, all out war, while messy, is a very lucrative means to the end of converting the resources of global south nations into private capital for the global north.

This capital is then wielded within the capitalist world to manipulate political outcomes in favor of the private owners of capital and to prevent the working class from gaining the consciousness that would enable them to struggle for the things you mentioned; health care, worker's rights, affordable education; as they slowly strip away what was won from past struggles.

I believe this lovely quote by Ella Baker, a major activist and leader behind the civil rights movement, is relevant to the conversation;

A nice gathering like today is not enough. You have to go back and reach out to your neighbors who don't speak to you. And you have to reach out to your friends who think they are making it good. And get them to understand that they--as well as you and I--cannot be free in America or anywhere else where there is capitalism and imperialism. Until we can get people to recognize that they themselves have to make the struggle and have to make the fight for freedom every day in the year, every year until they win it.

Source

This quote is an example of what I am talking about though. Roosevelt had to take great strides to ease the great depression, because of mass protest movements at the time openly led by socialist/communist parties, but he could not go so far as to address the economic system that created the great depression. Nor could the capitalist class allow these policies to be associated with the socialists that visibly fought for them. Doing so would threaten the power of capital; this is not long after the bolshevik revolution that created the USSR, so there was major fears of similar movements taking root in the US.

This is not Truman defending the new deal, this is him distancing the new deal from socialism.

The new deal was not socialist, which is by design, but it was made up of things that socialists would have certainly fought for and taken even further if their effort was sincerely meant to achieve socialism.

It's time to stop letting socialism be used as a scare word. Sure, the loudest ones will continue to bury their heads in the sand, but those people weren't going to be won over anyways. Furthermore, you aren't going to win people over by talking down to them, and you cannot address their needs in a sincere manner if your base assumption is that they aren't intelligent enough to understand their own lives.

edit: I'm also not suggesting that we should be fighting over "the word and meaning of socialism"; precisely the opposite, in fact. I'm saying that we should be living examples of what a socialist is and what socialists advocate for. We should be seen in our communities doing the ground work of organizing and being role models for what we believe in.

The difference between what we are accused of and what we are actually doing is stark, which can't be pointed out if we're constantly distancing ourselves from anyone that calls themselves socialist simply because we're afraid of the word. There is so much present day and past evidence; from the rich history that was erased in the red scare and all of this anti-socialist sentiment; for us to draw on instead of trying to distance ourselves from the reality that what we advocate for is anti-capitalist in nature.

How's that?

They will chose that latter, for sure.

Yeah, I've noticed that about the left in general, that the perfect is always the enemy of the good. Meanwhile the right's out there like "yeah, a lot of you are going to die, but that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make".