RoR: Forum

"To be successful, a conspiracy requires a shared belief among the conspirators that their interests are linked - something to the effect of, "Whatever happens, we sink or swim together." This is really the only glue that binds a political party together. American party structures are very weak; partisans participate in the "conspiracy" only if they believe it will help them in the long run."

Post 1

Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 7:39pm

There is another way to look at conspiracy theory fans. They have a psychological predisposition to believing things are controlled by others and kept secret. I'm of the opinion that it is long standing pattern for dealing with anxiety of some sort and that it dates back to some sort of bad premise(s) from early childhood that matured to an adult form. Their adoption of a theory as to why things are going wrong confers an increased sense of control and safety and possible solutions... all of which are far more welcome than free-floating anxiety.

I have very similar theories to explain people that I see as predisposed to mystical orientations or psuedoscience.

In both cases the 'self-interest' is reducing a fear or anxiety with a rationalization - a false answer.

Post 2

Thursday, January 28, 2010 - 8:04pm

I think Cost is dead on with his definition. The theme of his excellent article, which definitely merits reading, has nothing to do with conspiracy theory-ism, which should properly be called paranoid theories of conspiracies.

I like the quote because it fits my definition of what parties are and shows why there should be a total separation of party and state, down to removing identification of party affiliation from ballots.

Post 3

Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 9:21am

It is a great quote. But it is about psychology and perspective - it is stating a motive and doing so with pejorative language clothing the goal.

Look what happens if you change the psychological motive and the language describing the goal of a party. He could have said, "At its essential level, a political party is an extra-governmental association of individuals striving to more effectively influence the government's recognition of their commonly held principles."

Post 4

Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 10:23am

Steve, you are treating the connotation of conspiracy as if it is the original sense of the term. The ancients believed that the breath was the soul. Conspiracy simply means a breathing together, the mingling of purpose through communication. Conspiracy does not necessarily mean criminal conspiracy, else the phrase would be redundant. It isn't, and Cost is using the word in its exact, original, and proper sense.

Post 5

Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 11:38am

Ted, I get that. But in common usage where conspiracy does drag around that criminal or immoral shading, it makes it an even better quote because it then fits our current parties so much better.

Their patent dishonesty and lies that are on the surface and in every public utterance and that require that they skulk about in the dark to effect separate and private channels of communication with each other to align their actual agendas. A conspiracy to conceal their real motives for acquiring control of government.

I think that quote works really well either way. To take it to a more serious level it only needs that we discuss the function of parties as a means of leveraging the power of an individual by combining to speak with one voice that has many votes. And it is along key principles that they choose to join. This requires the need to compromise on lessor principles and thereby to reveal what are the key principles - those which the party members are willing to let go of for a better shot at power, and those that they won't part with.

But even when you've done that you end up back at the same point. The honesty. Are the publicly proclaimed principles the ones that are really binding the party together? Or, is there an understood, but unstated agenda, that both takes precedence over all other principles and separates one party from the other party?
(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 1/31, 11:46am)

Post 6

Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 11:49am

Well, I suppose you would support my position that parties should be disestablished, including the end of publicly financed primaries and the removal of party affiliation from ballots.

Post 7

Sunday, January 31, 2010 - 3:07pm