Human Nature

[Ivan Denisovich]

I consider cynicism about politicians and democracy to be partly to blame for the political rise of a demagogue in the U.S.

The cult-like adulation of an authority figure is one of those atavisms I was referring to.

I would love political rise of demagogue in US cause that would mean someone giving a shit about common man but I'm not in habit of loving fantasy. Sanders ain't president.

Also democracy have itself to blame - if it couldn't provide citizens with European style healthcare (would be called single payer here?), lessening wealth inequality, or educating citizens on why voting for fascist is both immoral and counter effective then perhaps some shock is needed so political class could reassess it's priorities.

[Angrboda]

I think that through history, the human proclivity to tolerate, and often actively endorse, authoritarian regimes which themselves appeal to human bigotries is evidence that humans are indeed very often twisted. That's not to absolve politician of their guilt; in fact, it sort of highlights it, in the sense that they prey upon these proclivities in order to attain and exercise power.

Absolving common men of their tolerance for the tyranny of leadership is no more equitable than absolving tyrants for their taking advantage of that tolerance. It's true that some systems are so overbearing that the individual cannot stand up without being hammered down; North Korea comes to mind. But in other cases (Russia, China?) it may be that the populace accepts "stability" and surrenders some freedoms.

Is this symbiosis, is this hopeful stupidity, or is this keeping your head down?

I think this is common to all situations. The cost of trying to change things is always going to be greater than just accepting the status quo and going along to get along.

[Alan V]

I consider cynicism about politicians and democracy to be partly to blame for the political rise of a demagogue in the U.S.

The cult-like adulation of an authority figure is one of those atavisms I was referring to.

I would love political rise of demagogue in US cause that would mean someone giving a shit about common man but I'm not in habit of loving fantasy. Sanders ain't president.

Also democracy have itself to blame - if it couldn't provide citizens with European style healthcare (would be called single payer here?), lessening wealth inequality, or educating citizens on why voting for fascist is both immoral and counter effective then perhaps some shock is needed so political class could reassess it's priorities.

According to Google, a demagogue is "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument." That describes Trump certainly, but not Sanders who does indeed rely on rational arguments and facts IMO. (One can argue for different policies on the basis of the same facts, but Trump doesn't rely on facts.)

In the U.S., lower taxes are given priority over universal healthcare, even by a large number of voters. I don't agree with that either. Our highest priorities should be the basics.

In the case of democracy versus fascism, be careful what you wish for. In our case, it seems to be leading to a plutocracy -- just the reverse of what Trump's fake populism promised.

[Ivan Denisovich]

I would love political rise of demagogue in US cause that would mean someone giving a shit about common man but I'm not in habit of loving fantasy. Sanders ain't president.

Also democracy have itself to blame - if it couldn't provide citizens with European style healthcare (would be called single payer here?), lessening wealth inequality, or educating citizens on why voting for fascist is both immoral and counter effective then perhaps some shock is needed so political class could reassess it's priorities.

According to Google, a demagogue is "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument."  That describes Trump certainly, but not Sanders who does indeed rely on rational arguments and facts IMO.  (One can argue for different policies on the basis of the same facts, but Trump doesn't rely on facts.)

I was ready to offer another more positive take on this but there isn't much that would be really bad here. I see politicians as someone who provides vision and if necessary plays on emotions to achieve success. Certainly I have trouble with recalling politicians actually using rational arguments and not merely mumbo-jumbo only them and their spin doctors think rational. ETA: To give you an example - "we must lower taxes so wealthy will invest more" is not something I consider rational argument but merely ideological rote script with at absolute best tenuous basis in reality.

All politicians are demagogues (per your definition) in my view as convincing someone by rational arguments is more a domain of academia (and even then not always or perhaps even not often). Also I would describe trump as fascist.

Lastly as an aside I prefer outdated meaning of the word demagogue: When the ancient Greeks used dēmagōgós (from dêmos, meaning “people,” and -agōgos, “leading”) they meant someone good—a leader who used outstanding oratorical skills to further the interests of the common people. It's a label that actually mean something.

In the U.S., lower taxes are given priority over universal healthcare, even by a large number of voters.  I don't agree with that either.  Our highest priorities should be the basics.

Does anybody seriously pushing for it? Quick google search tells me that Harris dropped the subject during presidential race and voters in the end can only vote on what is on the offer.

In the case of democracy versus fascism, be careful what you wish for.  In our case, it seems to be leading to a plutocracy -- just the reverse of what Trump's fake populism promised.

I don't wish for fascism but it's pretty clear to me that fascism is result of failures of both democracy and capitalism. It does not appear because people are dumb or vicious.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think human nature is good.  Trumpers are trying their level best to be their worst. Hurt people hurt people.

I just want to pull this apart a little. Why do you think human nature is good when we see so many examples throughout history of humans fucking one another over? I get your point that "hurt people hurt people"  -- damaged people do damage, sure. But we also see plenty of instances of the collision of cultures where neither has had opportunity to do harm to either, yet they still go at it hammer and tongs. Just 'cause, apparently.

Who hurt the antisemites who eventually cooked up the ovens? They decided to slaughter European Jewry on the basis of ... what? What about the extermination of native Americans? Were the Europeans "hurt" by anything more than a barrier to expansion? Did aborigines in Austrailia do something wrong to earn a couple of centuries of being shitted on?

I think "hurt feelings" is a facile explanation that doesn't touch upon many older and less-political divides. Tribalism, expansionism, and a bad case of "I want what he's got" seems to be in play too.

We don't always hurt the people who hurt us, when we set about hurting people.  It's the donald and his broligarchy fucking middle america.  Has been for years.  They're gonna take it out on mexicans while cheering for their abusers, though.  

Broadly speaking, the white grievance narrative works not just because there's some number of compulsive racists in the us, but because it really does suck to be a working class american right now.  Because it really does suck to try an raise a family on one, or two, or even three paychecks.  Because a 1200sq foot home with 3 feet of clearance around it can cost half a million dollars and there's no guarantee that home is even where half a million dollars worth of job is at, or will be.  Because the price of everything just keeps going up as our wages stagnate even though we're printing obscene wealth for a handful of other people who aren't worried about their mortgage, but being the first to a trillion....and, frankly, are fucking stone cold weirdos to a man.

[The Grand Nudger]

Naive might have been too soft a word. Expecting Russian to lay their lives for incompetent gov which insisted on wasting their lives in idiotic offensive would be stupid or insane.

But why?  Why would that be insane or stupid to expect?  Whatever it is you're thinking of there, that makes it seem obvious to you that this is a batshit expectation...is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I use the term "human nature". You indicate just in this sentence that you think it's predictive enough to consider a third party stupid or insane just for having expectations contrary to whatever that is.

At any rate, I agree. That's nuts - unless you're dealing with heavily indoctrinated people, that's not something I would expect from them. The heavily indoctrinated and heavily leveraged, otoh, yes, absolutely, I would expect nothing less. Look at the meat in ukraine. The russian government is incompetent, it's been wasting 1k lives a day on idiotic offensives for some time now, and it lost territory for it's trouble in doing so.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Who tolerated those politicians if not the people?

These politicians weren't chosen in elections.

Of course not, in most cases. But they are tolerated even in the absence of elections, until a polity decides that "this is bullshit". I saw that exact thing happen in Iran in 1978, where an autocrat who was happy to kills thousands to preserve his power was all the same chucked out of office.

No government can survive when the body politic is fed up. Louis XVI, Tsar, Shah, the Soviet Union, all terrible regimes, all overthrown either by the people themselves or by a military that responded to public opinion.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I just want to pull this apart a little. Why do you think human nature is good when we see so many examples throughout history of humans fucking one another over? I get your point that "hurt people hurt people"  -- damaged people do damage, sure. But we also see plenty of instances of the collision of cultures where neither has had opportunity to do harm to either, yet they still go at it hammer and tongs. Just 'cause, apparently.

Who hurt the antisemites who eventually cooked up the ovens? They decided to slaughter European Jewry on the basis of ... what? What about the extermination of native Americans? Were the Europeans "hurt" by anything more than a barrier to expansion? Did aborigines in Austrailia do something wrong to earn a couple of centuries of being shitted on?

I think "hurt feelings" is a facile explanation that doesn't touch upon many older and less-political divides. Tribalism, expansionism, and a bad case of "I want what he's got" seems to be in play too.

We don't always hurt the people who hurt us, when we set about hurting people.  It's the donald and his broligarchy fucking middle america.  Has been for years.  They're gonna take it out on mexicans while cheering for their abusers, though.  

Broadly speaking, the white grievance narrative works not just because there's some number of compulsive racists in the us, but because it really does suck to be a working class american right now.  Because it really does suck to try an raise a family on one, or two, or even three paychecks.  Because a 1200sq foot home with 3 feet of clearance around it can cost half a million dollars and there's no guarantee that home is even where half a million dollars worth of job is at, or will be.  Because the price of everything just keeps going up as our wages stagnate even though we're printing obscene wealth for a handful of other people who aren't worried about their mortgage, but being the first to a trillion....and, frankly, are fucking stone cold weirdos to a man.

So is it hurt feelings, as you wrote earlier, or is it economic woe, as you implicate here?

I stand by what I wrote, that "hurt feelings" is a facile explanation, and frankly it seems you're agreeing. I think there's also an in-group/out-group dynamic in play, which politicians use for their own purposes.

Ascribing this to "hurt feelings" is facile. You're right that being on the the other side of the economic eight-ball surely engenders resentment. But that fails to explain a lot of human shittery. It is at best an incomplete explanation of why we are so often so shitty to one another.

[The Grand Nudger]

Two things can be true..and these two things..anxiety and poverty, even just individually, are well demonstrated to produce fuckup after fuckup in human decision making. They're the organizing principles of maga, but maga isn't the full bouquet of human shittiness, and what explains maga probably wont explain all possible ways to fuck up, obvs. As for the idea that hurt people hurt people being facile...maybe, but perhaps human beings and human nature are commonly facile?

It's basically saying "but that would be simple and stupid". All I can say is meet John Q, listen to him do his little maga speech, right?

[Ivan Denisovich]

Naive might have been too soft a word. Expecting Russian to lay their lives for incompetent gov which insisted on wasting their lives in idiotic offensive would be stupid or insane.

But why?  Why would that be insane or stupid to expect?  Whatever it is you're thinking of there, that makes it seem obvious to you that this is a batshit expectation...is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I use the term "human nature".  You indicate just in this sentence that you think it's predictive enough to consider a third party stupid or insane just for having expectations contrary to whatever that is.

Why it would be insane to expect populace already tired of war to support gov that want them to stay in war and is incompetent to boot. Even brightest minds of our era can't grap why it would be insane. I give you a hint though, it's not because of human nature, but merely because people aren't as foolish as incompetent politicians imagine them to be.