Conspiracy theorists believe that although some government agencies are treacherous, others are blameless. Conspiracy-theory is not the content of what they believe, but only the medium.
The History Channel's program The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy? used the latest forensic science and computer animation to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered President Kennedy — acting alone. The famed "audio evidence" actually came from far away from where it was supposed to have originated, thus refuting the "grassy knoll" theory.
New Orleans D.A. Jim Garrison's key witness against Clay Shaw led Garrison to accuse Shaw of planning the assassination with the CIA. But when a polygraph examiner informed Garrison that this witness admitted that he'd flunk the test because he'd lied, Garrison exploded and accused the polygraph examiner of being a CIA stooge! Shaw was acquitted.
The program tried to explain why such people need to believe in conspiracy theories: we live in such a complex world that it seems impossible that one individual could kill such an important man.
But the program didn't explore the political climate during 1963. Take the 1990s. If I said that it was difficult then to turn on a radio or a television without hearing some new "special report" about right-wing militias, this would only be an exaggeration.
Consider the profusion of exposé books — some from major publishers — about far-right "militias:" Armed and Dangerous (Hill & Wang, 1987), The Silent Brotherhood (Free Press, 1989), Bitter Harvest (Viking, 1990), A Force Upon the Plain (Simon & Schuster, 1996), Gathering Storm (Harper Collins, 1996), Harvest of Rage (Westview Press, 1997), False Prophets (Dove Books, 1998), The Militia Threat (Plenum Trade, 1999), and The Terrorist Next Door (St. Martin's, 2002).
In the 1960s, the far-left Black Panthers were just as militaristic, their rhetoric was just as revolutionary, and they even had shootouts with the police. "In Indianapolis [during the 1990s], Mmoja Ajabu, the leader of the Black Panther militia who had been organizing 'soldiers,' delivered an ultimatum to the city to make government more responsible to Black residents of Indianapolis or face bloodshed." April 6, 1990's New York Times had a page 12 story: "Call for Black Militia Stuns Milwaukee."
Yet while the above nine books have exposed rightist militias, from the 1960s to date I have never even heard of any television "news specials" exposing the Black Panthers or seen any books warning the public about them.
Now substitute the John Birch Society for militias, and you have the 1963 media climate. The Birchers, America was told, were dangerous and might take over the Republican Party. (The Birchers were no more dangerous than a doughnut; and although they’re not nearly as extreme as Klansmen, Bill Buckley drummed them out of the mainstream conservative movement.) If I said that you could hardly turn on a radio or TV in 1963 without hearing another exposé about the Far Right, it would also be only an exaggeration — not an untruth.
I also recall that the cumulative effect of all this propaganda was to drive some people to near-hysteria. (Saying that the media created an anti-gun hysteria during the 1990s would actually be something of an understatement.) In 1963, they portrayed Senator Goldwater as a hate-filled extremist, which is deceitful. (In 1955, he had joined the Tucson chapter of the NAACP.) But millions were convinced that powerful forces were trying to wreck the Civil Rights movement.
In such a climate, no evidence could have convinced some people that Lee Harvey Oswald or any other Marxist could do anything wrong. Also, I remember that one of the major media reports I watched at the time blamed the assassination on the right-wing "climate of hate" in Texas and the South. "'In 1963, Dallas was known for its peculiar brand of right-wing extremism,' says Darwin Payne, SMU professor emeritus of communications, who as a young newspaper reporter covered the assassination."
Thus, some people "knew" that the Far Right and only the Far Right could be responsible. To draw a parallel, in 2003, The I Hate Republicans Reader was published. 2004 brought The I Hate George W. Bush Reader; Why I Hate the Republicans; The I Hate Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice … Reader; The I Hate Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity … Reader; and The I Hate Corporate America Reader. Yet millions remain firmly convinced — just ask them — that only conservatives hate. (Conservatives "hate;" liberals just "hope.") Hating minorities is called hatred by the media, but hating "the rich and the corporations" is treated as benign social criticism. In 1963, portraying conservatives as hate-mongers was even more prevalent than today.
Even if conspiracy-theory advocates watched The History Channel's program, it would only persuade them that THC must be secretly funded by the CIA! To explain why, let's examine two instances of actual government cover-ups. The first was reported by the Chicago Tribune on November 30, 1979:
WASHINGTON [AP] — Social Security Commissioner Stanford G. Ross said Thursday people must forget "myths" about contributing to their own retirement and recognize the payroll deduction for what it is — a tax to support the elderly, the disabled, and their families.
Ross, who is resigning next month, criticized what he said is a widely held belief by the nation's workers that Social Security benefits are a "a sacrosanct entitlement" earned from "contributions" to the system.
The "myth" that the Social Security levy is a contribution, not a tax, "proved valuable in the early days of the program, but . . . is helping to confuse the debate over Social Security today," he said.
This was a useful stratagem. In July 1998, a federal judge vacated the Environmental Protection Agency's spurious 1993 report on the dangers of secondhand smoke:
- EPA deliberately misled the American public about the science concerning secondhand smoke.
- EPA was guilty of major scientific and procedural errors in preparing its Risk Assessment.
- EPA cherrypicked information, changed the standards of scientific inquiry and tortured the data to reach a predetermined conclusion.
- EPA abused its power and authority in an effort to force regulation on secondhand smoke when the scientific basis for the EPA's claims simply did not exist.
Since conspiracy buffs are such eager announcers of cover-ups, we should expect this official chicanery to enrage them. It hasn’t. So they are not conspiracy-theorists at all, but simply people who believe that although some government agencies are treacherous, others are blameless. Conspiracy-theory is not the content of what they believe, but only the medium.
Why, then, does the CIA seem so malevolent to them? Well, its mission is neither to disburse funds to the needy nor to "protect the environment." The agencies that do these things are irreproachable for precisely these reasons, while the CIA has no such halo. It provided Cold War intelligence. When the CIA was the O.S.S., fighting Nazism, such a mission posed no problem for "progressives." (The "Military-Industrial Complex" was still the "Arsenal of Democracy" then.) But when Communism became the enemy, a new generation had been taught that resisting Communism was a danger to world peace, and placating it was not appeasement.
Several years before the assassination, The Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) was founded in response to the production and testing of nuclear weapons. SANE petitioned JFK to maintain a moratorium on atmospheric testing. But defense spending also took money away from social programs. In 1963, some citizens had begun to propose not only racial equality, but also economic equality. However, it seems hypocritical to advocate this if one comes from an affluent suburban family. This was no problem for blue-collar labor organizers like Jimmy Hoffa, but it was embarrassing for the youthful protesters of the early 1960s.
Some went Spartan and lived among the poor people they were trying to organize, but most were not prepared to make such sacrifices. However, one can stop feeling "privileged" by assuming that a corporate-governmental "power structure" exists, automatically making everyone who is not a confederate of it a "little guy" — one of "the people" — as if he were a longshoreman. Some beliefs are beliefs; others are medicine.
Yes, if class hatred somehow disappeared, so-called privileged youths would feel much less guilty about their origins. But these activists rely on class hatred as a political weapon. Unless they desist, political conspiracy theories will probably enjoy long life-spans.
allan1969@yahoo.com
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0966694309/qid%3D935700521/002-3924269-0915415
Read more articles by Allan Levite
"Conspiracy Theory" thinking is an equal-opportunity affliction, affecting people in every corner of the political landscape. For right-wing examples, see the various wild accusations about the Clintons (which sadly led to an actual murder by Wayne Dumond), or the 'evil atheistic evolutionist' conspiracy theories common among creationists.
Nor are leftist types the only ones who think "some government agencies are treacherous, others are blameless". On much of the right, there's a deep mistrust of the claims of many branches of government… but when it comes to the defense agencies, suddenly they get perfect trust despite documented examples of lies and cover-ups there, too. (E.g. Pat Tillman.)
The problem is 'conspiracy theory' thinking itself, not the particular forms it takes due to the political leanings of those engaging in it.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | March 4, 2008
conspiracy, noun
1 a group involved in secret or criminal activities
2 a secret agreement or cooperation between two parties for an illegal or dishonest purpose
3 a secret plan for accomplishing evil or unlawful ends
To be a conspiracy, the participants must be:
a) planning or engaged in illegal or harmful activities and
b) collaborating in some fashion and
c) keeping activities secret contrary to some principle of revelation
Mr. Ingles incorrectly identify those who believe some government agencies treacherous while holding others blameless an attribute of conspiracy-theorizing. To be a theory requires the believer have little or no foundation for the blame he affixes. If the parties held culpable are, in fact, guilty and proof exists of it, then it is no longer theory. The fact someone holds one sector blameworthy while holding another blameless, has no bearing on it being conspiracy-theory. It may be an incomplete theory or it may just be wrong. It is even possible there is a conspiracy and the theorist is right other sectors are not involved. In fact it is more probable the conspiracy is not widespread. The wider the conspiracy, the more unwieldy and likely of discovery it is. This makes the link between ‘conspiracy-theorists’ and ‘holding some agencies blameless’ a measure of whatever grasp on reality they retain rather than a measure for delusion; and may be nothing more than a conspiracy-theorist’s way of maintaining a modicum of credibility.
Banks keep most of their dealings secret. So do psychiatrists, lawyers, priests, and anyone sworn to protect the nation’s secrets. Does this mean we’re all engaged in a huge conspiracy? No, because we are not keeping secrets to harm but, rather, to protect and keep them in conformance with principle, not contrary to it.
If what is believed is simply mistrust based on something other than specific unlawful or criminal acts, then, again, it is not conspiracy-theory. For example, the conservative-libertarian believes there are legitimate and illegitimate objects of government. He also believes in ‘self-governance’ over collective governance. This is not based on a belief all government is necessarily corrupt, he simply believes he can best represent his own interest and steer clear of trouble far better than government can do it for him. I do not mistrust an excess of government because I believe those in government worse than me; I simply have no reason to believe them any better. Their interests are not my interests, and I can be pretty sure they will put theirs before mine. Some will be corrupted by the power they are given, and more corrupt the longer they have power. Not all corruption consists of stealing or doing things that are patently evil. Most of it consists of taking something that doesn’t belong to you – the right to decide things for others when it is unnecessary to maintaining a civil society. Playing god is just as corrupt as stealing or locking us up without sufficient cause.
I agree there is inconsistency in those who will blame one sector of government while holding another blameless for doing the same things. But that is not delusional; it is a double-standard.
(cont.)
Comment by Bob Stapler | March 7, 2008
(cont.)
I don’t imagine Mr. Ingles objective was really about leveling the playing field or injecting balance. His understanding of conservatives and conservatism is limited by an anti-conservative bias, as amply shown in his own web pages. Among of the things he says of us:
Ingles: “They seriously argue that the 'War on Terror' gives the President carte blanche to do whatever he wants, ignoring the law.”
No, we aren’t for giving anyone carte blanch or ignoring the law. President Bush bent over backwards getting Congressional and court authorizations for everything from operations in Afghanistan and Iraq to streamlining surveillance of communications initiated by foreign nationals. Contrast that with FDR’s bullying of the courts and Congress in time of war or LBJ deliberately ignoring restrictions during Vietnam. Bush wields less surveillance and war making power than JFK. Yes, we are more accepting of compromise measures in time of national crises, but far from willing accomplices to subversion of our freedoms. We do worry this power will fall into the hands of people even less circumspect than George Bush, and even that he has been changed by power. We just don’t shutdown all debate over it and recognize the need.
Ingles: “Laws against gay marriage are stupid and unconstitutional. …” and goes on to misrepresent the conservative stance against elevating gay behavior to a legally protected status. We won’t raise bestiality or pedophilia to that status either. We treat homosexuality as a sickness and those who push children to ‘experiment with it’ as monsters. Too lengthy to reprint here, so read what he says about us for your selves at: http://ingles.homeunix.net/rants/stupids.html.
No, they are not un-Constitutional and it took some mighty stretching by a few black-robed men to come up with the cannard it is. What is un-Constitutional is nine-judges making the decision for the rest of us what laws we can be trusted to pass.
Ingles: “So-called "Intelligent Design" isn't science. To the extent that it makes any kind of predictions or statements, it's flat wrong.”
Science is, in the broadest sense, ‘any systematic knowledge or practice’. It is less generally a ‘system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method and the organized body of knowledge gained through research’. There are people who insist knowledge is unscientific solely because it is not measurable. Yet, a good deal of what people ‘know’ to be true, especially among mainstream scientists, is unquantifiable. We call these fundamentals, and make all kinds of assumptions regarding them. ID is at least as ‘scientific’ as evolutionary theory which is, itself, constantly evolving. ID is merely an alternative theory for how we got here. It does not pretend to have all the answers, but it is every bit as methodical in seeking them out. The main difference between ID and ET is it does not start from the premise G*d does not exist. Other than that, it sifts the same evidence only with a different set of biases on where they can lead. Ingles is an avowed atheist, so it is understandable he’d have difficulty concieving alternatives for his existence involving anything higher than himself in the cosmic pecking order.
Ingles: “He [Brehany] says that HPV vaccination should not be mandatory for school kids because if you behave right you won't get it, and besides, if you just get regular pap smears then you can detect precancerous cells and have them removed before they become cancer.… the real reason is all too apparent in the CMA's press release: "[S]upport for the vaccine, and similar vaccines in the future, should not be used to undermine support for efforts to promote chastity and to reduce extramarital sexual activity." … he [Brehany] opposes mandatory vaccination because he wants to give parents the option of making sex more scary.”
I’ll let Brehany and CMA speak for themselves on this one. I found their policy reasonable and not at all as Ingles presents it. See if you don’t think so too: http://www.cathmed.org/publications/cma_statement_hpv_vaccine_jan07.pdf
Ingles: “Trolls in newsgroups and chat-rooms and forums … aren't trying to communicate, they are playing a game where the goal is to anger someone else. Any response is just confirmation (in their minds, anyway) that they have "won". Best course of action is to ignore them and move on.” – Mr. Ingles seems to be describing himself, here, as much as anyone.
(cont.)
Comment by Bob Stapler | March 7, 2008
(cont.)
A good many conservatives denounce war (I am not one of them) just as vocally as the left and generally give better reasons. Some fought bitterly against Patriot I & II. We have gay conservatives who opt out of the gay lobby and there are conservative atheists (I am not sure but Ingles may be one of those, but I don’t think so from what I’ve seen of his rant). Conservatives tend to be religious more than not, but not monolithically nor equally. This should tell you conservatives are no where near as monolithic in our thinking or allegiance as liberals and, if there is any conspiracy among us, it is terribly fragmented.
Bill Buckley said a conservative is just someone standing in the middle of the road yelling “STOP!” That means we are no different in many of our values from liberals, just more cautious and unwilling to risk ill-considered alterations to our society. Some conservatives are indeed different from liberals in they’d prefer turning the clock back, are small in number, scorn us as ‘fake’ conservatives, and decline association with us. Buckley’s characterization means we are the type less apt to get swept away by every passing crisis. Most of us are just older, hopefully wiser, and less impulsive Americans.
Comment by Bob Stapler | March 7, 2008
Mr. Stapler - thanks for the page hits. I'm actually glad that some people clicked through, because then they could see that you've mischaracterized my positions in several ways. For example, I don't tar all 'conservatives' with the same brush. On that page I stated that "[t]here are people" who want to give the President carte blanche, and I linked to an article describing someone - Harvey Mansfield - who very explicitly takes that position. When discussing the HPV vaccine, the title of the section is (emphasis added) "How Some 'Conservative' Types Have Reacted to the HPV Vaccine". (Even in the case of the HPV vaccine, I stated: "I actually oppose mandatory vaccination, because I'm basically Libertarian-ish. I figure people, even Dr. Brehany, should have the right to make stupid decisions, even for their kids. But I have the right to call those decisions stupid, and reprehensible.") And so forth.
You even mischaracterize my response on this very page - I'm not the one who linked the trait of believing "some government agencies treacherous while holding others blameless" with conspiracy thinking - Mr. Levite did, and I was expanding on that point - by quoting him directly, and pointing out similar behavior on the 'other side' of the political spectrum. Your disagreement there is with him, not me.
(BTW - if you're curious about how you've mischaracterized my atheism, see here.)
Comment by Raymond Ingles | March 11, 2008