Human Nature

[Ivan Denisovich]

If it is human nature at fault then why there is still democracy in the world? Are Americans are naturally deficient and thus prone to vote on fascists? Fascist trash in other countries can't beat propaganda "perfection" of immigrants eating cats? Parts of Europe are settled by naturally superior people who don't buy into demagoguery and propaganda? Surely if it is human nature at fault then at least one of the above must be true.

You can't say that above aren't about human nature thus I hope that you will answer.

Democracies were designed to offset the worst tendencies of human nature by dividing power between various branches of government.  The idea was that no one person or group should be given too much power because of the human tendency to abuse power.  

The confluence of several trends in the U.S. has undermined Amercans' understanding that for all of its failings and gridlock, democracy is still the best possible system of government.  Those trends include not-so-fair-and-balanced news sources, the declining impact of our educational systems, misinformation and disinformation available on the internet, a lack of critical-thinking skills, too much money in politics, taking our institutions for granted because of habituation, and the rise of a demagogue, which was enabled by all of these factors.

All I am saying is that the customer isn't always right, or in this case the voters, especially when they are convinced that demanding the impossible is acceptable.  And of course "the impossible" depends on the specific circumstances at the time.  What is impossible now may become possible later.

So now, because we elected Trump again, we have to learn the hard way why democracy is so important.

[bold mine]

So it turns out that it isn't human nature to blame for trump but confluence of factors that you can name without issue (though whether it is right diagnosis is a question for experts I guess).

Voters aren't always right, obviously. But another thing is just as obvious - whoever couldn't defeat clown like trump was shit candidate for president. It ain't stormfront or some kkk forum so there is no need to pretend that trump is anything but dumb walking failure and to say it plainly a cretin. So I'll repeat myself - if one can't win with absolute idiot then it is not voters who are at fault.

As for impossible - it's perhaps favorite word of neoliberal politicians. Sound safety net, welfare programs, appropriately taxing the wealthy... all these things are "impossible". If politicians can't provide basics such as above mentioned then why should they get someone vote? No one is owed votes, not being fascist it's not reason enough to get a vote. If all politicians have to offer is a status quo that outrageously favors the wealthy and fuck up the rest then people voting for like of trump is nothing that should surprise anyone. When world looks like shit extremists get votes - it was simple as that in '30 and is just as simple now.

My premise is that propaganda and demagoguery (lies) are anti-democratic, yet because of human nature too many of us like to believe in lies. Atheists should certainly be able to understand this point.

Your point is facile as propaganda is merely (per Britannica*) dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion. It is often conveyed through mass media. Propaganda is not some evil taboo word in service of reactionaries but merely one of means used by gov around the world to influence voters. Propaganda can be anti democratic but it's not inherently so. Similarly demagoguery (per Cambridge dictionary**) is the action of winning support by exciting the emotions of ordinary people rather than by having good or morally right ideas. One can easily excite ordinary people by proposing higher tax for wealthy (and it coincidentally would be both good and morally right). I would agree that world have negative connotations but again there is nothing anti democratic in it. Offering vision to ordinary people is essence of democracy in my view. Proposing reforms in barely understood legalese is on the other hand both foolish and perhaps in collision with democracy as it excludes those who don't have special education from opining on something that will probably touch on their life.

I also contend the claim about human nature making us believe in lies. If it is human nature that makes so then clearly some of us are naturally better and other worse. It's a claim that I see as both absurd and classist. To say it plainly - I think that people voting on trump (or kaczyński in my case) are dumb or desperate in more charitable interpretation of their actions. I'm however no better than them, nor naturally superior. I simply have benefit of better education, cultural capital and not being someone who is really fucked by current system. If it would be human nature at fault then how one group of people would vote "right" and other "wrong" without one group being worse? To me it is nothing more than return to idiotic discourse of the past when nobles were naturally better than commoners, or men naturally better than women.

*https://www.britannica.com/topic/propaganda
**https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/demagoguery