When I was writing The Counterfeit, I read a lot of academic books about conspiracy theories. (Not that my book was very serious, but I wanted my plot and characters to be somewhat plausible.)
I was mostly researching why people believe in conspiracies, and rather than write a big explanation of what I found, here's an excerpt from my book--it's a conversation between the two main characters, Eric and Rebekah (both BYU undergrads). They have just had someone (Isabella) tell them about an elaborate conspiracy. (I've edited it a bit so that it makes sense if you haven't read the book...)
“I need to tell you something, Eric,” Rebekah said, a few steps ahead of me, picking her way carefully around chunks of broken rock.
“What?”
With the penlight in front of her, and me behind, all I could see was her dim silhouette.
“I don’t believe it.”
“That we’re being chased again, and are now hiding in the catacombs underneath Paris? I can’t really believe it either.”
She laughed, but there was no joy in her voice. “I don’t believe Isabella.”
“What part? She hardly told us anything.”
“Any of it, really. I don’t believe that there are people in this world who control things like that – it’s too easy. You know why people believe in conspiracy theories, I think?”
“Why?”
“Just because they’re easy. You remember the midterm in Dr. Vigil’s American Heritage class?”
“Yeah. I remember that I did lousy on the multiple choice section.”
“For the essay portion I answered the question on the causes of the civil war. I wrote seven pages on that thing, all about slavery and the abolitionists, and do you know what grade I got?”
“An A?” Rebekah always got A’s on everything.
“A C-,” she said. The tunnel came to a fork, and she paused, turning to face me. “Dr. Vigil wrote one word across the top of the essay: monocausationalism. When I went to his office to ask him about it, he said that being called a monocausationalist was one of the worst insults an historian will ever hear.”
“Academics are weird,” I said with an uncomfortable chuckle. I had no idea where she was going with this.
Rebekah smiled. “What it means is that the historian claims that something happened just because something else happened. It’s extremely simple cause and effect: the civil war happened because of slavery, or the Great Depression happened because people were buying stock on margin. But it ignores all of the other causes.”
She finished her argument, and then looked flustered. “Which way do we go?” I unfolded the map again and she shined the light on it.
“There’s this dead end to the left,” I said. “Around a curve. It looks good.” The path to the right headed into an area with a lot of right angles and was most likely a former basement.
Rebekah nodded, and headed left. “It’s like what Isabella was talking about with the Pilgrims. I grew up hearing about how they came to America looking for religious freedom too, and that’s true – but it’s not the only reason. In fact, it’s just one of a dozen reasons.”
“And this is why you don’t believe Isabella?” I asked, confused.
“People believe in conspiracies,” she said, stopping and looking back at me, “because they don’t understand all the causes that go into the big events in history. They can’t understand what makes prices rise and fall – I mean, I got an A in economics, and I don’t really understand what makes prices rise and fall. So people think that it can’t possibly be as confusing as it really is, and they decide that prices rise and fall because a secret society somewhere has secret meetings in dark, smoke-filled rooms, and they’ve decreed that gas prices will go up and bread prices will go down.”
“I hate to sound cliché,” I said, “but just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that someone isn’t out to get you.”
Rebekah laughed softly. “I think I saw that on a bumper sticker.”
So, that was a very long way of getting to my point, which is:
- When someone tells you that there is a simple answer to anything, be skeptical.
- When someone says that some Y happened because of some single X, tell them to go back and read some more.
- When someone says "This is common sense", they're almost always wrong.
Why? Because very few of the issues in this election are simple, and because if you believe the issue is simple, then you'll assume there's a simple solution, and then you'll be horribly, terribly WRONG.
I spend more time than I should reading the news, and perusing political blogs. And I'm absolutely nauseated by the complete lack of nuance. Instead, all there seems to be is "I believe X because of Y", or "Politician #1 will destroy America because he believes X".
There is a cellphone commercial that's been running a lot lately, wherein a group of firefighters appear to be sitting in for Congress. The firechief reads off issues, and the firefighters vote -- "800 pages to tell us we need clean water?" the chief mocks. "Who wants clean water?" All the firefighters say "Aye." The chief tosses the 800 pages on the table and mutters "This is the easiest job I ever had."
The message of the ad is clear: these firefighters cut through all the political nonsense--they know how to actually get things done! I think that most bloggers and commentators have this same mindset: yes, we want clean water (or whatever), so let's just vote for it and get it over with. And they neglect the hundred important issues that have to be discussed: where will the water come from? How will it be paid for? What constitutes "clean"? Should it be flouridated? Those kinds of questions are not an example of politicians trying to overcomplicate the issue; they're an example of trying to make the right decision with all the imformation.
Lest you think I'm singling out any party or the other, I am not. I'm singling out stupid extremism. I'm singling out the people who spread goosebump-inducing stories rather than discuss facts and principles. I'm singling out the party apologists on both sides: Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, but also Arianna Huffington and Bill Maher. I'm singling out the people who write silly blogs about how this candidate hates America, and how that candidate is corrupt.
(That was longer than I meant it to be. Sorry...)
8 comments:
And that wasn't the only reason I liked The Counterfeit.
Well said. I know a teeny tiny fraction about politics compared to you, I'm sure, but this just rings true--and explains why half the time I want to throw an anvil at the screen when I read blogs about the election.
Thank you Rob . . . Can I vote for you? Seriously.
Holy cow Rob, I didn't know you knew people who could throw an anvil. I suppose I should start being nicer to you for fear of your friends' rath against me.
I think your post suffers from exactly what you are railing against. There are many reasons why people publish blogs without going into great detail on the principles and issues behind their stance. There are also many reasons why Huffington and Coulter use reactionary and incendiary language to express their viewpoints.
It isn't simply because people don't have a nuanced reason for supporting one candidate or another.
I'm not saying that some of these people don't have nuanced reasoning, nor am I saying that they don't have a reason for why they do what they do.
What I am saying is that, while calling a cadidate "anti-American" may be an effective tactic (if your goal is to scare stupid people, or to fire up the support of people who already agree with you), it's not a good tactic. It doesn't educate or inform, and it doesn't convert anyone to your point of view (other than, as I said, the stupid people).
And, of course, it exacerbates the problem of a dissatisfied populace. If the public thinks that there are simple solutions, then they'll always be angry at the slow movement of government (in both making decisions and in executing decisions). And they'll be more polarized, less interested in compromise and more interested in indignant dogma.
So, while I agree that it might be a good tactic for a single election, or a single party, it's a bad idea for the country in the long-term.
I disagree. The "stupid people" are those who don't pay any attention whatsoever to any election.
I recently read an article in the deseret news focusing on misperceptions created by negative campaigning. Questions such as, have you heard that Obama is a Muslim, or have you heard that McCain fathered a black child, were asked and then the same people were asked if this had influenced their vote. I don't remember the specifics, but I'm fairly certain that the majority of those polled stated that the misperceptions had not altered their votes.
I think the American voting public deserves a lot more credit than they get. There is a presumption that people are stupid if they listen to conservative talk radio. That presumption is founded in the assumption that everyone listening believes everything that the host says. Most take everything the hosts say with a grain of salt recognizing that the purpose is to fire up the base. Otherwise, the hosts would be more subtle in their attempts to change the minds of people.
It reminds me of a Simpsons episode where Bart is part of a boy band that is actually a recruiting tool for the U.S. Navy. When Lisa stumbles onto the plot, the Lieutenant states that it is part of the threefold approach to up enlistments - subliminal, liminal, and superliminal. He then demonstrates superliminal by yelling at the first person he sees to join the Navy. The person complies.
It doesn't work that way in real life. If I stand on my soapbox in the busiest intersection of each city and town in America and yell that Obama is anti-American, people aren't going to be swayed.
The same goes for those whose soapbox is the radiowaves. I just don't see it causing people to make a decision one way or another.
So, while it may solidify and fire up the host's base, it does little to gain any headway in causing people to swing one way or another.
This may, in turn, cause those people to become more staunch in their beliefs (and therefore more averse to compromise) but these people were unlikely to be the ones gunning for true compromise in the first place.
I may have misinterpreted what you wrote, but it sounds like you completely agree with me.
Like I said--and like you said--this kind of discourse does absolutely nothing to convert people to your point of view. (Granted, I said that it converts stupid people, but you seem to think that I think there are a lot of stupid people who are converted. I don't.)
My whole point is that this type of inflammatory discourse is worthless. It does not win votes for your cause, and it does not educate the people who already support you. Instead, it spreads anger, misinformation, and polarizes the country.
But it's fun.
Seriously, though, every now and again when I'm not certain my blood pressure is high enough, I'll find my way over to the SLTrib and read one of Rebecka Walsh's columns. If there were ever a prime local example of what you are talking about, it is manifested in these columns.
Perhaps more appropriate, though, is the response her columns get in the comments section. I expect people to spout their opinion and either agree or disagree, but the SLTrib has a way to rate comments. If a comment gets more than 7 negative ratings, it is hidden from view. Readers can still read the post by simply clicking on the appropriate spot. Still, this does not lend itself to the political debate.
The most interesting part of this ability to censor others' comments is that it is usually only those who disagree with Ms. Walsh's comments who are censored by their fellow posters.
I am a very conservative individual. I almost tend toward libertarianism in my view of the government's role - especially the federal government. I LOVE a good debate. I always imagined that the "enlightened liberals" and elitists also enjoyed a good debate. In reality, however, given the rate and way in which conservatives and Republicans are censored from the comments section, it is apparent that they are not interested in a debate.
I guess it's easier when your opinion is the only one heard.
Post a Comment