So, AVI is hosting a useful set of reposts about the dangers of paranoia and conspiracy theories. He and his commenters all have good points, and these things are worth keeping in mind.
At the same time, consider the Durham investigation (link is to an Andy McCarthy piece, whom I assume we all think of as a non-conspiracy theorist but rather a reasonably fair former prosecutor). This investigation is looking into what looks increasingly like a very successful conspiracy by the Clinton faction to suborn the national security state, paint Donald Trump falsely as a Russian spy, and obtain (a) FBI investigations that destroyed the lives of several citizens associated with him, none of whom proved to be working with Russia; (b) a Special Counsel investigation, accompanied by loud media coverage of how plausible it supposedly was that these were Russian spies; (c) two impeachments; and (d) the deposing and arrest of a National Security Adviser of the United States, who happened to be a retired three-star general who'd held security clearances his whole adult life (and was therefore regularly, rigorously investigated). Flynn was almost sent to prison, requiring a Presidential pardon to keep a Federal judge who'd bought into all of this from finding a way to put him behind bars.
Indeed, the Presidential election of last year -- one faction of which self-described as a 'conspiracy' -- was largely constructed around Biden's rhetorical painting of Trump as somehow a friend of Putin. This was never plausible; in fact, Biden's decisions e.g. on Russian pipelines have benefitted Putin's strategic position far more than anything Trump ever did. Yet people believed it, and still do believe it, because a vast number of respected professionals across government and the media all told them so.
Ask the same questions about that. How many people had to know? How many people participated without having to know, because they were willing to do just do what their faction asked? How many leaks were there over the years? How much did it matter, given that the media was aligned politically with the faction running the operation and therefore willing to play up the false stories and suppress the true ones? Did anyone have to ask, say, Rachael Maddow to take the latest Trump-Russia leak super seriously and trumpet it to her audience? Did she need to be in the know, or was she functionally a part of the conspiracy who didn't have 'need to know'?
I suppose I've been in a few conspiracies myself, some of them successful. It's not as hard to believe once you've seen it done, and once you've done it.
That said, paranoia really is dangerous, and many conspiracy theories really are false. I don't mean this as a counterargument so much as a counter-example; something to consider as leavening what are also important lessons.
8 comments:
Is it still a conspiracy when it is the powerful who collude to tell big lies?
I wonder how many devout partisans will profess a much more nuanced view of these events twenty years from now, when most of the players are long dead.
I wonder how many know it now, but won't admit it to themselves.
I guess it's a conspiracy either way. Actually we have government agencies whose major purpose is to arrange conspiracies -- and not always for the purpose of claiming to foil them, as the FBI or ATF do. The CIA's operations directorate exists to run conspiracies, although they've lost focus on that in recent decades.
As Grim notes, the act of 'conspiring' is not unlawful unless the objective of the conspiracy is unlawful. The whole of a presidential campaign is a grand conspiracy to influence an election, parts of which are executed in secret.
The actions of individual conspirators might be unlawful, as in this Alfa Bank case. This is the flip side of the claim that any communication between the Trump organization or campaign and Putin was 'collusion'.
It's not that there are no conspiracies; clearly people do sometimes act in concert and in secret to do terrible things. On rare occasions it's a large number of people in concert, whose common aim is breathtaking in its scope.
It's just that our pattern-recognizing brains tend to err on the side of seeing patterns that aren't there rather than on the side of missing patterns that do exist. Paranoia is a hyperfunctioning of an incredibly useful cognitive tool. We've got to remember to be open to evidence of alternative explanations.
In the case of Russiagate, though, I'm afraid the alternative explanations stopped holding water a long time ago. The only parts I'm trying to keep an open mind about are where people on the periphery aided and abetted, not because they were affirmatively in on it, but because they liked the result too much to do their jobs. I try hard to remember that example whenever I'm tempted to go along with someone else's fancy-tickling narrative.
How does the outsider distinguish between "conspiracy theory" and "Group Think" ?
Fluoride in the drinking water, for a low temperature example. I find it impossible to conceive of a cartel of chemists that deliberately created a market to sell fluoride compounds into. But I find it easy to imagine that good hearted souls take steps "for the children" without regard to the effect of their proposals on adults; the cumulative effect of adding "good stuff" to water, vitamins, toothpaste, mouthwash, and anything else they might think of; or the differences between sodium and tin.
All conspiracy theorists are good hearted souls take steps to pursue their ends selflessly for the benefit of others in the greater good.
Just ask them.
Eric Hines
Tex:
“… err on the side of seeing patterns that aren't there rather than on the side of missing patterns that do exist. Paranoia is a hyperfunctioning of an incredibly useful cognitive tool. We've got to remember to be open to evidence of alternative explanations.”
Yes, I agree. As I said in the post, this isn’t intended as a counter argument. It’s just that even large scale, functional conspiracy does exist. AVI’s post acknowledged that, citing Journolist as an example. But here is an example that crosses many professions, including ones that have different methodologies for determining if they are being lied to or deceived by a conspiracy. Police agencies, intelligence agencies, and yes journalists were all involved.
That’s not intended to make us more paranoid, or given to conspiracy theory. It is intended to acknowledge the truth of the world in front of us.
Yep, there are some whopper conspiracies out there that absolutely do exist. Just as we can't believe every conspiracy theory we hear, we also can't discount every conspiracy theory we hear.
Post a Comment