Posts Tagged ‘Iraq War’

In defense of conspiracy theories (sort of).

June 13, 2009

The neoconservatives’ rise to power in the early part of this decade was accompanied by a stranger phenomenon, the rise of the “neoleftists.” These strange creatures were steeped in the beliefs and principles of the Left, but found themselves tumbling out a different exit than most other self-described leftists. They thought of the Iraq War in particular as a noble people’s struggle against Middle Eastern fascism, more like the Spanish Civil War than Vietnam. All of them devised different means of explaining away the fact that most people who shared their basic principles found this war abhorrent. Christopher Hitchens came up with the novel argument that “doing nothing is also an intervention,” and that hence the Iraq War was simply reversing a bad “intervention” (leaving Saddam Hussein in power) in favor of a good, progressive one. Paul Berman decided that leftists were simply not capable of recognizing irrational mass movements anymore, and hence incapable of seeing the self-evident righteousness of the struggle against “Islamo-fascism.” Nick Cohen, a British writer, thinks our minds are too muddled by “conspiracy theories” to be able to see it.

Cohen’s article, poorly written and tastelessly accompanied by a picture of the exploding Twin Towers, is notable only for two reasons. First, it’s linked to on Arts and Letters Daily (why?), so numerous smart people will read it. Second, it provides yet another example of a tendency so widespread we ought to invent a name for it: Dismissing a charge of political maneuvering for profit or ill as a “conspiracy theory.”

The reason for the popularity of this move is obvious. Calling something a “conspiracy theory” instantly reduces the level of the entire conversation. It implies that your opponent is fundamentally an unserious person, and that politics itself is not to be taken too seriously. Your opponent is not a genuine political thinker but a person led astray by some sad mental ailment. Really, your opponent is more to be pitied than opposed, since his arguments are so self-evidently unfounded. “Their delusions impose a comforting coherence on the mess of life and randomness of death,” Cohen explains. He includes the notion that “the Bush and Blair administrations knew in advance that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction worthy of the name but lied and went to war under a false prospectus” among these “delusions,” right up there with the “Princess Di was murdered” conspiracy. Has he read the Downing Street Memo? Probably, but what chance have mere facts got compared to how lame all those anti-war protesters looked?

The stumbling block to this ever-useful rhetorical move is that conspiracies do exist. Strictly speaking, a conspiracy simply means a plan by a group of people in private to do something for an end that they cannot justify in public. This perfectly describes the actions of the Bush Administration in the year leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Calling it a “conspiracy” may summon up visions of John Birch pamphlets, but it is also an entirely accurate description. Politicians do scheme for advantage, both political and private; judging by the Iraq War, their schemes can have far-reaching and devastating consequences. Bush wasn’t even the first president to drag the United States into war on a made-up pretext; Lyndon Johnson beat him to the punch by 40 years. To assume that politicians always have our best interests at heart isn’t merely naive; it contradicts most of our history.

This tendency also stands in sharp contrast to our willingness to praise politicians for maneuvering for good ends. Last year, Hillary Clinton was fond of citing LBJ’s political savvy, which surely helped him pass the most important civil rights legislation of the century. Did Johnson’s passing of the Voting Rights Act make up for his lies about the Gulf of Tonkin? We can’t know, since that “conspiracy,” being an example of political savvy put to distasteful ends, never comes up these days, although it couldn’t be more relevant in these days of Nick Cohens and Robert Kagans, shaking hands across the political spectrum and fully agreed on the pathetic mental delusions of the ignorant, contemptible masses.


Of official stories and sales pitches.

October 29, 2008

Matthew Yglesias has this to say in regard to another blogger rightly pointing out that Kagan is rewriting the truth:

…if you think back to 2002 and early 2003 it was commonplace for supporters of the war to observe that Bush wasn’t making the “right case” or the “real case” for the war. It was always, in other words, understood among readers of Washington Post editorials and Tom Friedman op-eds and The Threatening Storm, The New Republic, and The Weekly Standard that the official sales pitch was just that — a sales pitch aimed at the rubes — and not the real argument.

Too true, and someting that’s often forgotten. Yes, we’ve since learned beyond all reasonable doubt that Hussein didn’t have any dangerous weapons. But the evidence was there for anyone who wanted to see it in the way the administration kept changing its pretext for war. Were we going there for humanitarian reasons, to uphold the authority of the United Nations, to protect the United States from nuclear assault, or because Hussein was allied with bin Laden? Unfortunately, far too many serious people got suckered in by the “humanitarian” take and treated Bush’s mendaciousness as a mere detail. It’s been said that democracies have more trouble waging wars than any other type of government; however you want to run them, though, it’s a safe bet that you can’t do it by deceiving the electorate and hoping no one notices.