Ahem.....

oh why bother... :D

Michale
141

I think you've hit on the difference in my opinion dsws. I have known fringe left-wingers who believed in aliens and 9/11.

Right-wing conspiracy theory is mainstream thought. Part of the reason for this, I believe, is that the right has stoked and encouraged conspiracy theorists for political gain.

It is part of their anti-government platform. I don't trust the government because they've proved they're willing to spy on the people of the United States. Some of the wingers I know don't trust the government because they actually believe Obama has concentration camps where he kills white people.

Out of curiosity once I sent an Alex Jones fan who I know the following list of 30 conspiracy theories and asked him which ones he believed in.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3483477/The-30-greatest-conspiracy-theories-part-1.html

Out of 30, he listed 28 as quite likely to have happened with there being no proof that they didn't happen.

The one connection in the 28 was that the government was involved in almost all of them. The only two he said he really didn't believe were #8 Elvis faked his own death and #14 Paul is dead.

Conversations with him were almost impossible because sooner or later he would try to convince you of the existence of chemtrails or that the government was suppressing Nikola Tesla's free energy generator.

It was fascinating but I felt bad for him. It's hard for me to imagine being so paranoid. Maybe there's an attraction to the strangeness. I mean, I do have to admit it's fascinating.

-David

The claim is that the situation is symmetrical: that truthers are just as influential in the Democratic party as birthers are in the Republican Party. One indication of whether something has been taken up by a significant segment of one of the major parties is whether there's been legislation associated with it.

I thought there had been some birther legislation but no truther legislation. If I was deluding myself about that, there was a good chance that a simple google search would show it. But it didn't.

First, thanks for the kind words. This column took a lot longer to put together than intended, so this just goes to show taking the extra time was worth it.

Second, there's another book I'm looking for (I'll search for the title later) which I think just came out which is something like "The Encylcopedia of Conspiracy Theories" which also sounds like an interesting read. As I stated, I'm a dilettante on the subject.

I've been more focused on conspiracy theorists who actually influence American politics throughout history. The best examples of which would have to be the Anti-Masonic Party, the Know-Nothings (actually mostly Anti-Catholic in nature), and others such as Father Caughlin who have had a real influence on the political scene. But I didn't mention these in the interview, as it was mostly beyond the purview of this book (they only went back to 1890). But to have a whole political party just being AGAINST a conspiracy is indeed fascinating (I believe the Anti-Masons were the first political party in US History to hold a truly national nominating convention for a presidential candidate).

In any case, just some random thoughts. I enjoyed doing this column, and interviewing the authors. Glad others enjoyed the result.

-CW

Or did I miss something??

Michale
134

Why would you add "bill" to the GOOGLE???

No one (as far as I know) is talking LEGISLATION vis a vis conspiracy theories....

Again, AFAIK, we're talking various conspiracy theories and whether they are "owned" by the political Party that puts forth those theories...

Michale
133

Ok, let's grant for a moment that this only proves I'm a deluded left-winger: it's axiomatic that birtherism and trutherism really are equivalent, so any putative evidence to the contrary can only indicate failures in gathering and evaluating evidence. What's the corresponding evidence that a deluded right-winger would cook up, purporting to show that the Democrats include a more-than-fringe group of truthers while Republicans do not include any significant number of birthers?

This seems a very weak assumption.

First, is there any reason to expect that people who get their news on the internet (which is growing) tend to write letters to the editor of a news source they don't read? Or that people who read newspapers are also accessing the on line news? I think it likely we are dealing with two very separate demographics with very limited crossover to the other sides favored domain.

Second, letters to the editor are a small venue. The number of newspapers keeps shrinking, and the physical space devoted to reader comments is very small fraction of the total in the ink driven world. Editors would be expected to take the "best" conspiracy theory letters, along with the best of everything else. Just because an editor receives more and more conspiracy based comments doesn't mean the papers will print them. The internet news/rumor domain is not nearly so discriminating.

Is it just me though or did they both skirt your "false equivalience" question?

Heheh.

-David

p.s. Did you ever read the classic The Paranoid Style in American Politics ?

Wikipedia (of all places) gives a neutral definition of conspiracy theory that I personally like a lot:

"an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more persons, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through secret planning and deliberate action, an illegal or harmful event or situation."

I admire the five assumptions of a conspiracy theorist as described by Daniel Pipes;

...."appearances deceive; conspiracies drive history; nothing is haphazard; the enemy always gains; power, fame, money, and sex account for all"

which he framed in the context of the Middle East, but which seems, to me, universal across popular culture.

The first attribute explains the long life and many incarnations of well known conspiracy theories. The first attribute refutes the value of evidence, because nothing is actually as it seems to be. Yet, the theorist must produce evidence to support his or her theory. When this evidence is found wanting, in any degree, it supports the premise that nothing is knowable, while at the same time spawning daughter hypothesis that cannot explain the unknowable, in the minds of other conspiracy theorists. A circular process that supports itself, if not genuine progress.

There is a superficial similarity between the modern scientific theory and the popular culture conspiracy theory. Important scientific theories are found wanting as new evidence emerges, and new theories are advanced that make better predictions. Scientific theories tend to converge towards a better understanding of the real world. Popular conspiracy theories ramify in all directions, because the target audience and fellow practitioners believe nothing can ever be as it seems.

I plan on it now! :D

Michale
124

For the same reason that the Republican Party is responsible for the birthers..

Like the authors said...

"MY side is all king and country. YOUR side is evil incarnate"...

Of course, I am para-phrasing, but that's the gist...

Michale
123

You really MUST read Stephen King's 11-22-63.. You would absolutely love it! :D

And then, see TIME QUEST with Ralph Waite... It was CW's commentary on J Edgar Hoover that got me turned on to THAT little gem... :D

Michale
122

There are good reasons why, of course. Righteousness is comforting and fortifying; it's also blinding and intolerant. There's an element of religious warfare to this. Note how such accusations galvanize one side while delegitimizing the other. Roughly half the population is fools or knaves. Republican elites are awesome snake charmers while Democrats are the People of Sweet Reasonableness (or vice versa.) The fate of the country is in the balance. These are politically expedient arguments to make, but they are not scientifically supported. With the current evidence, it would take some creative accounting to show that one party or the other has been systematically less susceptible to facts over long periods of time.

This part struck me as a dead on ballz accurate portrayal of the dynamics at work here in Weigantia... :D

I mean, seriously...

Righteousness is comforting and fortifying; it's also blinding and intolerant. There's an element of religious warfare to this.

Who amongst us has made this exact same point.. :D

People ignore evidence that contradicts their beliefs, and focus instead on evidence that supports their beliefs.

OK, this is getting downright spooky!!! :D

That the C.I.A. created lesbianism. If it's true, why would they have done that? What was the goal of such a scheme?

I could put forth a (ahem...) theory about that. :D

I have to agree with Hawk.. This is definitely one of your finest non-Political commentary... :D

Michale
121

Certainly most Truther nuts are on the left. But in what way is the Democratic party responsible for them, and by what criteria and evidence are they anything but a small fringe?

I don't actually know whether they're a small fringe or not. I've assumed they are. A handful of google searches returns nothing much. Searching for 'truther candidate' gave me one Democrat and one Republican.

My favourite conspiracy relates to the Kennedy assassination, of course, and revolves around the central question of a fascinating book by David S. Lifton, called Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of JFK. Anyone else here heard of it?