conspiracy

Let those Conspiracy's flow

Lily was good enough to email an article this morning, "On the Hunt for a Conspiracy Theory." She knows and I think kinda agrees, that Amusing Ourselves to Death, from Neil Postman, is one of the great, prescient books on the culture and context of American news reception. It's point in 17 words: Brave New World has come true, and its a manefestation is we don't velnerably search for knowledge.

I 65% like the article's opening thought:

Conspiracy theory has captured the public imagination. Often we are less interested in what politicians say or do than in attempting to decipher the hidden agenda that motivates their behavior.

95% this one:

No sooner was Harriet Miers nominated before rumors suggested that President Bush used her as a fall guy whose failed nomination would make it more difficult for liberals to discredit her more conservative replacement.

and 100% this one:

The simplistic worldview of conspiracy thinking helps fuel suspicion and mistrust toward the domain of politics. It displaces a critical engagement with public life with a destructive search for the hidden agenda. It distracts from the clarification of genuine differences and helps turn public life into a theater where what matters are the private lives and personal interests of mistrusted politicians.

There are those thoughts, though, that reap in below the 60%s. The author touches on equating "hidden agenda" with "conspiracy." He also grazes against, seemingly, a conclusion of anti-skeptisism.

I'm not sure he intends these, though. That last quoted paragraph calls for what anyone I'd respect thinks: we ought to engage in a careful search to clarify genuine differences in thought. Double entendre there, please note. There are real differences in or conclusions on how best to make things work, and what goals to pursue. If we're going to get anything done, and avoid being completely stupid citizens, it's time we recognize that most of us are also genuine people, that don't peel off human faces to hide the Garkutan the Puppy Eater underneith.

Peeling away from the comfort only in our choir political views, and shedding our repubs/dems are evil/decency-destroyers assumptions can do alot, really, for our own positions. How many people, really, are you going to convince when you first convince them you don't get their position. Reasonable people can differ about 99% of the crap we talk about, for instance, on this website.

That said, not looking for the back stories and undecurrents to political positions, as I seemed to hear whispered in this article, is hardly the appropriate response. Indeed, it is just those backstories and undercurrent thoughts that we need to identify. What the author meant to stress, I really think, is the process in which we do so. It ought to be a vulnerable and fairly unassuming search for the undergirded belief that places a person on position X.

And all that said, I don't think it's necessary to invent for someone a noble and earnest reason for a policy position. Or that it is irresponsible to point, say, to interest in gaining money as a motive for action. There are such things as BS PR spins put on positions intended to wad someone's pocket. Just as there are some simply idiotic solutions offered to the problems of our world. The earnest and vulnerable search doesn't mean we have to ignore reaosonable conclusions. Some folks are just mean and greedy. We just have to come to that conclusion properly.