See No Evil

There are very few words in the English language prone to invoke the wrath, scorn and disfavor of the mainstream media and academia more than these two: conspiracy theory. Merely mentioning this taboo phrase can and has resulted in ruined careers, loss of credibility and ostracism. The word conspiracy theorist is used as a smear term and has come to be associated with delusional, paranoid quacks who have lost touch with reality or who are trying to push a personal agenda. There are no doubt cases where this criticism is valid, but why do we have such an aversion to the concept in general? Why does the mention of the word conspiracy cause most people to roll their eyes and shake their heads in disbelief?

This topic is of particular interest recently with the surfacing of the Downing Street Memo and other documents which purport to reveal a conspiracy in Washington and London to draw both countries into war with Iraq using lies and false evidence. These documents claim that the decision was made early on to invade Iraq and that the intelligence was then fixed around this decision in order to garner public support for the war. Many people are outraged at the possibility that they were deliberately and carefully deceived and are calling for further investigation. There are even cries for impeachment of the President and the Prime Minister.

The main outlet for this outrage and continual inquiry and discussion has so far taken place informally on blogs, comment boards and personal websites. The mainstream media has reported on the issue but has been conspicuously careful to avoid giving it too much attention or to give validity to the conspiracy aspect of it. It’s much safer to fill up the pages of their newspapers and magazines with commentary on the stock market, the President’s address to the nation or Tom Cruise’s recent talk show tirade. But just what is a conspiracy and why is it such a controversial topic?

The word conspire is defined as 1) to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act, or 2) to act together toward a common end. A conspiracy is simply some form of secret agreement where the participants agree to a certain plan in order to achieve some common goal. This type of activity happens all the time. People conspire to rob banks. They conspire to steal other people’s identities or to con them out of their money. Criminals conspire by agreeing to tell the same lie in court in order to verify each other’s stories and alibis. In a general sense, anytime two or more people agree to lie or deceive you have a conspiracy.

Surely no one would claim that such agreements do not exist. All people want things and must work to acquire them. Many people form organized plans for their career, their social life, and for their future security and then set goals to achieve them. If those plans and goals involve illegal or underhanded activity they will no doubt attempt to avoid detection. This is the essence of conspiracy and no one can doubt that it takes place. The word is specifically written into our code of law. It is a crime by itself and carries penalties that are independent of other crimes that may have accompanied it.

So why is it that when this same idea is applied to our “public servants” or to some historical event it is so often scoffed at and ridiculed? Are politicians not self-interested? Do they not have their own goals, plans and agendas to further? I am reminded of a quote by G.K. Chesterton who once said, “The mere proposal to set the politician to watch the capitalist has been disturbed by the rather disconcerting discovery that they are both the same man. We are past the point where being a capitalist is the only way of becoming a politician, and we are dangerously near the point where being a politician is much the quickest way of becoming a capitalist.”

Regardless of what era or geographical region they live in or whether they work in the public or private sector, there are and always have been men who will conspire together towards evil ends. We know Hitler existed. We know he sat alone and in meetings with others planning and plotting to conquer the world. We are well aware of powerful despots from ancient Greece and Rome to modern Russia and China who simply craved power and who willingly and readily conspired to obtain it. Why then is it so hard to believe that these things go on here in our own country? Why do Academia and the media generally treat such theories with outright contempt?

One reason always given is a lack of evidence. In most cases it is assumed that because there is little or no "concrete" evidence to support the theory, it must be false. In reality, the hallmark of a well-planned and executed conspiracy is a lack of hard evidence. That is the point of conspiring in the first place; to not get caught. There actually are many cases where substantial evidence to suggest a conspiracy does exist, but it is usually written off as being inconclusive. Such is the case with the Downing Street Memo and many more famous conspiracy theories from our recent and not so recent past. They are usually brushed aside quickly without any real analysis and then the flood of media distraction resumes to help us forget the idea altogether.

We are taught to believe in the accidental version of history. This is the school of thought that says that historical events are not planned. People don't meet in dark alleys and smoke-filled rooms. What happens in the world, the politics, the wars, the victories and the defeats are all the random result of mostly well-intentioned actions by noble statesmen who have the public's best interest at heart. There may have been evil tyrants in foreign lands who conspired to enslave their people but not here. Not in America, the land of the free. This is completely contrary to historical experience and to common sense. As FDR once said, "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way."

When a conspiracy takes place among those in high and powerful places, they will naturally use whatever means are at their disposal to cover it up and that includes the media and their friends in the academic arena. This is especially necessary where there is abundant evidence against the conspirators. Tactics include personal attacks on the character and motives of those who are trying to shed light on the conspiracy, creation of counter-evidence, the presentation of innocent scapegoats to take the heat off of guilty parties, and mass public distraction. The latter tactic is by far the most common and takes many forms usually including the creation of some sort of crisis or emergency.

But for political conspirators, perhaps the most useful weapon against detection is to engender within the public mind a distrust of all things conspiracy. The key is to associate the word itself with nuts, whackos and crackpots. When speaking of a conspiracy theory, use sarcasm and hyperbole to make the very idea seem ridiculous and any further discussion or investigation seem completely out of the question.

In an entry level economics course I took in college, we were taught about the Federal Reserve System. To preface the lecture, the professor made the following comment laced with sarcasm. "There are a lot of crazy conspiracy theories out there about the Fed and how it's controlled by some ultra-secretive group of rich foreigners who are out to control the world. But the truth is that if you look at the history of the American economy since the establishment of the Fed, its growth pattern is much smoother than it was before."

This is a classic case of how to refute a conspiracy theory. Use the word "crazy" at least once when referring to it and then, using sleight of hand, distract the audience with a piece of sensible and legitimate sounding commentary that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual theory and that does not address in the least bit the evidence that exists. I'm quite sure that most everyone in that class is now effectively inoculated against any further discussion about whether or not there was a conspiracy surrounding the establishment of the Federal Reserve. See how easy that was?

The point of this essay is not to discuss the merits or failings of any particular conspiracy theory. There are certainly plenty of false, crazy and downright ridiculous ones out there. There are also some that are very legit. Those things are for you as an individual to study and decide on your own. It is also not an attempt to spread paranoia or fear or to propogate false ideas. The existence of conspiracies is no reason to lose our heads or to cease thinking in a careful, rational manner. We don't need to give heed to every hairbrained rumor floating around on the internet, but neither should we dismiss automatically every conspiratorial claim.

This is an attempt to show the reality of conspiracy as a common tool used by men trying to achieve their ends. It is an endeavor to remove the fog of suspicion and the cloak of cynism surrounding conspiracies in general. Hopefully this realization will arouse in us a healthy distrust for government. Once we have this we can begin to recognize conspiracy where it may be occurring and we will be less likely to be duped or hypnotized by the propaganda pouring out of our T.V. and radio.

America's founding fathers had this healthy distrust for government. They realized that when it comes to politics, conspiracy, deceit and demagoguery are the rules rather than the exceptions and that men could not be depended on to have the people's best interests in mind. That was why they tried to make their government small, unintrusive and most importantly, to ensure that it was firmly rooted in the rule of law. They knew it must be based on sound principles rather than subject to the arbitrary whims of bureaucrats. Unfortunately, that system has since been changed from what it was to something else. The fact that the American political system is vastly different today than when it was originally founded, that freedom has been curtailed, that principles have been sacrificed is indisputable. Whether we arrived here by accident or not and whether the destination is a good or bad one is for you to decide.