Human Nature

[Ivan Denisovich]

Hardly. People who are educated are simply better at rationalizing bullshit they believe in. One easily can be educated and maybe even expert in some subject and buy into conspiracies outside of relevant field of experience. Education does not guarantee wisdom and might even stump it if is arranged badly enough.

Perhaps, but I'd rather an informed voter who ratiocinates upon the issues than an uninformed one who votes based upon extraneous factors.

Nobody is stopping you from being one.

[Belacqua]

Of course it is. What is taught in schools is matter of policy and what "experts" think might easily be influenced by their political views. You try to use clear cut examples but consider economy or philosophy - when I was in school teachers were saying that low taxes are good and marxism is height of evil. That's however ideological and political stance not objective fact, just like myriads of other things taught in schools.

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!")

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'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 disagree. What's more I view this alleged opposition as perfect excuse - they will stop us so we will not even bother to fight. But when one does not fight for what one deems right then how one can expect voters following him? I maintain that what stops politicians is lack of vision and satisfaction with status quo. 

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. 

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. 

From my pov it is no wonder that millions of Americans stayed home and others decided to tear down shit. trump certainly changes things (for the worse of course) and change is what many seems to want.

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.)

[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).

[Alan V]

I don't see voters as any better than their politicians. If the facts don't prevail in our policies, it is just as much the voters' fault.

So for me it all still comes down to human nature and its various problems. Politicizing everything is an effect rather than a cause IMO.

[Ivan Denisovich]

I don't see voters as any better than their politicians.  If the facts don't prevail in our policies, it is just as much the voters' fault.

Of course voters aren't better. They chose politicians in their own likeness and in their own image. Propaganda plays a role too, obviously but in the end I think that people vote on politicians who embody qualities they like. Which is why politicians often are shitty.

So for me it all still comes down to human nature and its various problems.  Politicizing everything is an effect rather than a cause IMO.

As far as I am concerned human nature have nothing to do with it. How could it? For dumb peasant is natural to vote on fascist while enlightened member of middle class votes on progressive thanks to his noble nature? It's reductive and simplistic view with explanatory power akin to saying "things are how they are" and in fact it smacks of classism, at least in my view. I might have only contempt for those who vote on far right but I'm certain that they have reasons which are as valid to them as mine are to me when I vote left.

[Alan V]

Take climate change for example. In a sane world, all political parties would acknowledge the facts and offer different policies to deal with the various problems involved.

Denialism is a problem with human nature, a problem with confronting the facts honestly.

[Ivan Denisovich]

Take climate change for example.  In a sane world, all political parties would acknowledge the facts and offer different policies to deal with the various problems involved.

Denialism is a problem with human nature, a problem with confronting the facts honestly.

Of course corporate lobbying does not exist, nor it is possible that politicians who are let me remind you emanation of their electorate don't see climate change as danger at all or danger enough to enact unpopular changes. Clearly it must be human nature at fault.

[Belacqua]

Take climate change for example.  In a sane world, all political parties would acknowledge the facts and offer different policies to deal with the various problems involved.

Denialism is a problem with human nature, a problem with confronting the facts honestly.

I suppose we could say that human nature manifests and shows itself in politics. 

If it's human nature to deny hard truths, then our politicians will get votes by denying hard truths. 

It's also easier to talk about political policies and personalities than it is to talk about general human characteristics, probably. Like if you're looking for examples of greed and mendacity, the stuff that gets reported in the news every day become our go-to examples. 

There's a saying that "politics is downstream from culture." This was popularized by somebody we don't like -- a MAGA type avant la lettre. But it makes sense that these things work at least in dialectic. Political movements may encourage certain human traits, while natural traits make these political movements possible. 

Marxists (I think I mentioned before) claim that human nature is far more malleable than we usually acknowledge. They say that our social conditions (especially economics) cause us to behave in certain ways which then become "reified" as "second nature." Not really nature (like needing to breathe oxygen) but so deeply a part of custom that we find it hard to imagine anything different.

[Mister Agenda]

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? 

To give them enough of a majority to have power to do something, because of how our representative democracy works.

[Belacqua]

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? 

To give them enough of a majority to have power to do something, because of how our representative democracy works.

When Obama took office he had a majority in the House and Senate. He didn't keep his promises about "bailing out Main Street" (although he did bail out Wall Street) and he didn't work for universal health insurance. He didn't keep his promise to close Guantanamo, but he did repeat the promise four years later, and fail to keep it then too.

So even if they have a majority, that's no guarantee they'll do what we want.