One of the problems we’re dealing with here is definitional: Of what would a “political conspiracy” consist?
Conspire (by way of ME and Lat.) – to breathe together.
So if a political conspiracy is just talking about, or jointly wanting, or planning and taking action to achieve, a shared end, then yes, there’s conspiracy aplenty. Everytime Congress meets, all 400+ of them conspire to enact particular policies. The GOP conspires to effectuate its platform. Etc.
But we can do better, Razor: here’s a possible conspiracy model that’s more specific, as has been demanded: G.B. père is a member of the Trilateral Commission and CFR (fils may be too). The TC and CFR are real organizations that do discuss (and take positions on) world events and different ways of organizing the political and social order – i.e., their members (including the Family Bush) are “breathing together” as regards foreign policy. So [substantial inference] GWB is allowing the “conspirators” of the CFR and TC to dictate, completely or substantially, U.S. foreign policy.
Okay . . . but if that’s the conspiracy, how is it much different than GWB allowing the Bush Cabinet, or the GOP Platinum Donors’ Circle, to “breathe together” with him to determine foreign policy? I would be surprised if the TC and CFR positions on certain international issues were not substantially mirrored in certain planks of the GWB foreign policy (just as GWB (and Clinton, and most others) have breathed together with, and mirrored/enacted the policies of, the Cuban exiles, and AIPAC, and other constituencies, on certain issues).
So what separates acceptable “breathing together” from unacceptable? The dictionary goes further and provides that the shared objective or agreement of the conspirators must be for “an illegal, treacherous, or evil act.” So to distinguish the bad breathing together that you see in U.S. policy from the run-of-the-mill breathing together that is inherent in pursuing shared political goals, I think you’re going to have to articulate specifically why (objectively or subjectively) the U.S. policies you cite are “illegal, treacherous, or evil” (and which would fall short of being illegal/treacherous/evil, though maybe still deplorable, e.g., the President injecting himself into the N. Ireland peace process in response to perceived Irish Americans desires).
Is it the lying and inconsistency, in itself, that renders the end evil (e.g., “boy, we better get over there right away to eliminate all those WMDs that Saddam has on the launch pad”)? Or is this simply a cynical means that does not necessarily render the end evil/treacherous/illegal? Are we talking procedure or substance?
It strikes me that unless you can explain the “evilness” of the ends that are being collaborated on (we’ll stipulate some degree of collaboration), and/or propose a formula by which evilness of the ends can be presumptively established by some particular combination or level of
(a) collaboration;
(b) secrecy;
© identity of those breathing together;
(d) nature of the end,
then we’re back at the truism that certain people share certain aims that they try to enact through the political system, using methods that are not always the most straightforward or admirable.
