Human Nature

[Ivan Denisovich]

Sometimes people assume that "if everyone were more educated, they would all end up agreeing with me." But of course it doesn't work out that way. (Similarly, when people say "Think for yourself!" they generally mean "Think for yourself until you agree with me!")

Sometimes it's true - if people would be actually educated they would agree with me... when I say that Poles weren't only innocent victims during WWII or when I suggest that billionaires don't have the same interests as working class. This sentiment certainly does not cover all or even most of situations but just as certainly covers some. There are things that most of people would agree with were they to have actual education but sum of these things isn't all that big as I suspect most disagreements come down to ideology.

Probably you heard that the UK Supreme Court recently made a ruling against trans people. I looked up the judges, just out of curiosity. Those are some highly-educated people. And of course if we say that they don't have a REAL education, because they ended up with a bad conclusion, then we're just defining "real education" as one that agrees with my views.

I didn't, there are myriad of things far more important to me than whatever happens in UK. I take your point however - current Poland PM (Donald Tusk) despite having masters degree in history blamed recent flood here on beavers. Yet another former PM (Jarosław Kaczyński) despite having doctorate in law claims that Germany is a IV Reich. They obviously have real education but this does not stop them from being either delusional, dumb or lying pieces of shit.

Having said that some people don't have real education. I would have hard time not laughing if someone after bible college would say to me that he have real education.

I've read that college-educated women are the least likely to support Trump. So it may be that, in general, education works against him. But he's a particularly blunt force. A more subtle fascist could appeal to a lot more people. I think we've already mentioned this: a lot of people are frustrated with democracy, so a smart and effective guy could end up doing some serious damage. 

I don't recall reading in what cohort he had least support though I wouldn't be surprised if there would be correlation between higher education and not voting on him. That however does not mean much as not voting for trump is like not stealing candy from kids, something merely expected not praiseworthy.

It's certainly possible that someone smarter would do more damage. But he still can do quite much of it.

This is the Dems in a nutshell. The Republicans won't let us; the corporations won't let us; we'll never get that even if we try. Well, maybe so, but then why should anyone vote for you? 

I suppose we could say that Trump's scattershot approach is the opposite. Issue a thousand executive orders and make it the job of the Dems and the courts to shoot down what they can. 

Looking from outside I see dems similarly and in fact they remind me of Poland ruling coalition who also is mostly known for not being able to do things (except when it comes to suspending constitution, then they can and even work with allegedly hated opposition). They're tanking in polls because of this approach but they always have other party to scare people with and gain steady 20 or 30% of votes. Hilariously both these parties [PL and US one] are called extreme left by fascists when in reality neither is.

I am NOT saying I support any of his orders, but I suspect that his supporters see him as a man of action, in contrast to some politicians we could name. 

This is obvious. He may not be doing what he promised, may be failing in doing what he promised but he does much and I guess for some it is enough.

This I believe is the key. When people feel betrayed and ignored by their government, they don't vote for the candidate who promises to keep doing the same thing as before. (Whether Kamala really intended this or not, it's what she was reported as saying. Image is everything.)

Yes. This is why I think that any talk about voting on "lesser evil" is harmful as it only result in further perpetuating status quo which is eminently unfair to millions whether we talk about US or PL. People must be encouraged to vote according to their conscience. This would however force politicians to actually do something and not merely scream about how others are worse (yes, reps might really be worse. So what? Staying home is a legitimate option when choice is between bad and worse).