Human Nature

[Ivan Denisovich]

Issue is that people might not really support what they say they support or see it as nice to have but not trumping other factors. Supposedly many poor wants minimum wage to be raised. Does their voting reflect it? Do they vote on people who said "yes" to raising minimum wage when bill for it was presented (or for those who pushed for said bill themselves, depends on vagaries of country system I guess) or merely on people who promise raising it. Ye shall know them by their fruits is one of pathetically small list of biblical wisdom; if one votes for those who say instead on of voting on those who do then one shouldn't complain about not getting what one want.

In the end politicians promises are only worth as much as people will to held them accountable. If politicians are reelected despite breaking them how can public complain about not getting what it wants?

Yes, we all wish that voters were better informed. It would be nice if they could do the math themselves, and see through the lies. 

But they're up against about the most effective propaganda methods ever employed. And we're given very little choice. Bernie would have won, probably, but the Dems wouldn't let him get near the nomination.

They still have access to internet or libraries, it's not ancient Rome where smartest man alive knew less than today elementary school pupils. Also even in US there are other parties that main two. It is voters willingly casting their vote on "lesser evil" that conserve status quo and fuck themselves in doing so.

If people can stand to oppressive regimes and see them fail they can stand against lying politicians. It however require more effort than nodding to first bullshit artist that comes along.

There's blame enough to go around. I think that leaders should be held accountable, too, but how does that work in practice, when we're given a choice of two lying (and much lied-about) miscreants? People only know what they're told, and neither the politicians nor the corporate media have any loyalty to the truth.

It won't ever work in practice if people will not put necessary effort into it. I don't see much sense in absolving citizens of responsibility by pointing at multitude of lies in politics. Yes, politicians lie, media lie and ordinary people lie too but it is enough to use one brain to see through bullshit. It's not like for example right wing bullshit about almost everything being communism requires much brainpower to see through. Politicians lies are threadbare often enough, it's just that people like and agree with them as they want their representatives to be into their own likeness and into their own image.

There can't be democracy without democrats, without people holding politicians accountable. As long as people will vote on "lesser evil" politicians will continue to lie and break promises as their behaviour incur no costs to them when they can merely point on others and say (rightly or wrongly) they are worse. In the end responsibility falls onto a citizen, because if said citizen will not look for his own interests then why anyone else should.

[Belacqua]

Yes, we all wish that voters were better informed. It would be nice if they could do the math themselves, and see through the lies. 

But they're up against about the most effective propaganda methods ever employed. And we're given very little choice. Bernie would have won, probably, but the Dems wouldn't let him get near the nomination.

They still have access to internet or libraries, it's not ancient Rome where smartest man alive knew less than today elementary school pupils. Also even in US there are other parties that main two. It is voters willingly casting their vote on "lesser evil" that conserve status quo and fuck themselves in doing so.

If people can stand to oppressive regimes and see them fail they can stand against lying politicians. It however require more effort than nodding to first bullshit artist that comes along.

There's blame enough to go around. I think that leaders should be held accountable, too, but how does that work in practice, when we're given a choice of two lying (and much lied-about) miscreants? People only know what they're told, and neither the politicians nor the corporate media have any loyalty to the truth.

It won't ever work in practice if people will not put necessary effort into it. I don't see much sense in absolving citizens of responsibility by pointing at multitude of lies in politics. Yes, politicians lie, media lie and ordinary people lie too but it is enough to use one brain to see through bullshit. It's not like for example right wing bullshit about almost everything being communism requires much brainpower to see through. Politicians lies are threadbare often enough, it's just that people like and agree with them as they want their representatives to be into their own likeness and into their own image.

There can't be democracy without democrats, without people holding politicians accountable. As long as people will vote on "lesser evil" politicians will continue to lie and break promises as their behaviour incur no costs to them when they can merely point on others and say (rightly or wrongly) they are worse. In the end responsibility falls onto a citizen, because if said citizen will not look for his own interests then why anyone else should.

Here you're talking about what SHOULD be true, and I certainly agree with you. 

People should put in the necessary effort, and they should be too smart to get fooled quite so easily. 

I also think that people with power and media clout should make it easier for people to achieve those things. 

But I guess we're kind of back at the OP now -- do we think that those things will ever be possible in the real world? Or are we justified in being gloomy, and thinking there's no hope?

I sort of tend toward the latter, I guess.

[Ivan Denisovich]

Here you're talking about what SHOULD be true, and I certainly agree with you. 

People should put in the necessary effort, and they should be too smart to get fooled quite so easily. 

I also think that people with power and media clout should make it easier for people to achieve those things. 

But I guess we're kind of back at the OP now -- do we think that those things will ever be possible in the real world? Or are we justified in being gloomy, and thinking there's no hope?

I sort of tend toward the latter, I guess.

Putting bare minimum of effort into informed voting is more than possible, it is practiced by millions of people around the world. If even one person can be arsed to think others can be too. Question is if there will be enough voters who realize that interest of billionaires aren't the same as theirs.

[Alan V]

Bernie would have won, probably, but the Dems wouldn't let him get near the nomination. 

"The Dems wouldn't let him" is a funny line, since Sanders wasn't even a Democrat.

This discussion is really more about human psychology than politics per se, though of course they are mixed together.

So for instance, your line above shows your incomprehension of a group of people who think differently than you do, i.e. Democrats.

[Belacqua]

Bernie would have won, probably, but the Dems wouldn't let him get near the nomination. 

"The Dems wouldn't let him" is a funny line, since Sanders wasn't even a Democrat.

This discussion is really more about human psychology than politics per se, though of course they are mixed together.

So for instance, your line above shows your incomprehension of a group of people who think differently than you do, i.e. Democrats.

Sanders ran as a Democrat in 2016 and 2020. He won 23 primaries and caucuses, including New Hampshire, Vermont, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Oregon, among others. In 2020, he won at least 9 primaries and caucuses, including New Hampshire, Nevada, Vermont, and California.

In 2020, running as a Democrat, Sanders was the front runner after strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, and then a decisive win in Nevada. Despite being the most popular candidate, Democratic Superdelegates opposed him. When Biden did well in South Carolina (a more conservative state), three moderate candidates suddenly dropped out and endorsed him -- ensuring that there would be party unity against the "radical" Sanders. Several Democrats at the time acknowledged that Biden was selected by the Dem party as the one to block Sanders. 

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/17/11680904/b...convention

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/07...ces-519919

All these moves were legal by party rules, and not particularly unusual when the powerful people have a preferred candidate. No one can know counter-factual history, but Sanders was doing very well, he was also polling well among people who wanted a not-business-as-usual candidate -- that is, many people who ended up voting for Trump said they would have voted for Sanders if he'd been available. Nor can we know exactly what the insider conversations were. 

There is strong evidence that the candidate preferred by the majority of Democrats in the primary election didn't get the nomination because more conservative Democrat officials didn't like him.

[Alan V]

There is strong evidence that the candidate preferred by the majority of Democrats in the primary election didn't get the nomination because more conservative Democrat officials didn't like him.

As a Democrat, I consider that a cynical assessment. After all, before the other Democrats dropped out after South Carolina, they were splitting the Democratic voters between them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There is strong evidence that the candidate preferred by the majority of Democrats in the primary election didn't get the nomination because more conservative Democrat officials didn't like him.

As a Democrat, I consider that a cynical assessment.  After all, before the other Democrats dropped out after South Carolina, they were splitting the Democratic voters between them.

As an independent, it strikes me as fairly plausible. Sanders had a small but vocal base here in Central Texas. While I doubt they voted for Trump en masse, I'm sure at least a few did -- and more to the point, many sat out the polling altogether.

[Belacqua]

There is strong evidence that the candidate preferred by the majority of Democrats in the primary election didn't get the nomination because more conservative Democrat officials didn't like him.

As a Democrat, I consider that a cynical assessment.  After all, before the other Democrats dropped out after South Carolina, they were splitting the Democratic voters between them.

Does the cynicism negate the evidence?

I freely admit that I was not a part of the insider conversations. I do not have recordings of the phone calls Obama made to the candidates who dropped out. None of knows for sure what happened. 

I used the term "strong evidence," and I stand by that. Proof is harder to come by. 

The last election is an indication that the Dems will choose our candidate for us, without the input of a primary, even if it means getting a candidate proven to be unpopular. Those were extraordinary circumstances, since the Dems had been lying through their teeth about Biden up until the very late moment when they couldn't any more. 

I see no reason to be uncynical about either party.

[Belacqua]

I apologize for giving this thread a political turn.

I think that pointing to Trump as evidence for the dark side of human nature is a reasonable argument. My point has been that politics has been full of such evidence for a long time. Trump is the current and most noise-making example.

There is plenty of evidence from other fields, too, so I will try to branch out a little bit.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I apologize for giving this thread a political turn.

I think that pointing to Trump as evidence for the dark side of human nature is a reasonable argument. My point has been that politics has been full of such evidence for a long time. Trump is the current and most noise-making example.

There is plenty of evidence from other fields, too, so I will try to branch out a little bit.

(Bold mine)

Funnily enough, I find your apology less than sincere.

Boru