This morning, as we were watching Morning Joe, Jill asked: "What is it that has, in the past decade or so, made conspiracy such a popular method to explain things?"
I suggested the following:
When a formerly majority opinion becomes the minority position, those who still hold that opinion are hard-pressed to explain why their long-held belief is no longer popular--especially if, as is often the case, "all my friends agree with me." They simply cannot believe that the vast majority of the country has altered so greatly or that those who hold this once-reviled position (gay rights, minority rights, atheism/agnosticism, etc.) have legitimately gained power; clearly there must be sinister forces at work.
Hence, a conspiracy: If no one I know supports these ideas, then there must be some small, powerful cabal that is secretly pulling the levers behind the scenes ("a man behind the curtain," if you will). And in an age where powerful communication tools are available to just about anyone, it is ridiculously easy to spread this idea widely. And if you point out that there is no hard evidence for their view, the response is often "that just proves how powerful the conspiracy really is."
It's a concept that has been tried in the past, with somewhat less success. Father Coughlin attempted it using radio, Joe McCarthy with the press and the early days of television, the John Birch Society with pamphleteering. Each had some influence, but it waned as the "gatekeepers"--editors and publishers--pointed out the flaws in their methods and ideologies.
Today, those gatekeepers are no longer as powerful as they once were. In some circumstances, there simply are no gatekeepers. And so, all the nonsense flows through.
No comments:
Post a Comment