There are a lot of conspiracy theorists out there. Many of them can’t really be tied to a single party. Moon landing deniers, Kennedy conspiracists, e.g.
Others are, fairly or unfairly, tied more to one party or another. E.g. 911 truthers are linked to the left. Holocaust deniers are linked to the right.
Along come the birthers (people who either deny that Obama is a natural-born citizen of the US, or who say the question hasn’t been answered at all). There’s been a lot of talk recently about them, with some prominent conservatives stating the movement is silly.
So, the question: Does a conspiracy theory like birtherism hurt the Republican party? Does it actually help the party? Does it convince uninvolved people that the birthers are on to something, or does it convince them that they’re on something? Are the conservatives like NRO coming out because they are simply tired of the discussion and value honesty or are they trying to nip it in the bud because they think it makes them look bad?
I’m using the birthers as the example, but any conspiracy theory’s damage or boost to a party is a welcome topic.
Since when?? It seems to me that 911-Truthers are typically anti-semetic, which would make them lean more to the right than left.
As for the anti-Obama “birthers”, that argument’s so silly that it doesn’t deserve to be labeled a conspiracy theory – more like a “Hey, I’m an idiot!” theory. :mad:
The degree to which the party itself supports the conspiracy is the factor that matters, in my opinion. Holocaust denial does no damage to the republican party because no republicans publicly support it or people that do. Same thing with the truthers. The birther thing is in another category, with legislation being written and congressmen publicly declaring their sympathy for the conspiracy. Even more damaging is the lack of an easily identifiable leader for the Republican party to indicate what the consensus position is. I don’t think it convinces anyone who wasn’t already a solid republican, but it could distance people who were previously more favorable to the Republican party.
And you can take a Research2000/Daily Kos poll with all the salt you want, but it would seem that self-identifying Democrats(90%) and Independents(83%) overwhelming believe Obama was born in the USA while Republicans(42%) are leaning the other way. Birther republicans probably aren’t going to join the democrats if the Republicans quash the birther stuff, but independents might flee if they don’t. I’m not sure if conspiracy theories are special or if this is a characteristic of all fringe beliefs, though.
This, more or less. The fact is that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have the power to shut up the loonies of the world, and people know it; so having someone loosely associated with the rest of their political platform spout crazy stuff isn’t going to influence most people’s opinion of that party. But if the party supports it, or sometimes even stays silent ( because silence can be seen as a matter of letting the loonies do the dirty work ) then people can and will associate the lunatics in question with the party. And once that happens it can be hard to get rid of the stigma, since many people will assume that the party secretly agrees even if it renounces that conspiracy theory, or similar unpopular attitudes.
I can’t believe this is still going on. I have the same document, “Certificate of Live Birth”.
No one denies I’m American, but I’m white and Obama’s a Muslim anti-christ and black too, so why believe, eh? :rolleyes:
At a guess, only the nutters have the energy and interest to keep the party going during the long boring stretches between elections. Normal people have jobs.
I don’t know if the 9/11 conspiracy theories are especially Democrat. Former Democrat Cynthia McKinney is a troofer and conspiracy nuts of all colours sure do show up in numbers at all the anti-Bush demonstrations. And then there’s the conspiracy that Bush “stole” one or the other or both of his elections. There’s the conspiracy that Bush had something or other hidden away under his jacket during one of the televised election debates. There’s the conspiracy that it was Sarah Palin whom was pregnant and not her daughter, and it was Sarah that gave birth. Just to name a few which I have seen been discussed on SDMB. Some of which are more stupid than the birther theory.
Personally it has damaged my trust in the Nobel brand, that they handed away a peace price to a woman, Wangari Maathai, whom thinks that AIDS is disease create by the white man to kill Africans. Although she later recanted, she sounds like a spectacular stupid twat. Not that my trust in the Nobel peace price was all that hot to begin with.
Bush didn’t “steal” the election – he’s too stupid to steal anything, including third base. His conservative cronies stole the election(s) on his behalf, or at least they could have. (For the rest of the story, watch Hacking Democracy.)
That’s a new one, and I like it. Any more info? I don’t mind supporting a good conspiracy theory, if only to piss off brainless Palin supporters.
In 2009, 28 percent of Republicans believe President is not natural-born citizen; 2007, 35 percent of Democrats believed President knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks.
The theft of the 2004 election is something of a conspiracy question, but could more reasonably be held up as an example of a need for election reform. I wouldn’t say that ethical reform is the biggest issue with that election, but the inefficiencies were staggering.
The theft of the 2000 election is not a conspiracy question, since the issue isn’t one of whether the Bush campaign set out to rig it before Election Day, but rather their jiggery-pokery after Election Day. That’s what is generally debated. Whether you feel the Bush campaign is being unfairly accused of stealing the 2000 election or not, the results were not premeditated. I’d say it was a conflict of interest that Katherine Harris was both the Bush campaign’s Florida chief and the person responsible for certifying the Florida election results, but that’s really more a question of ethical conduct of a public official than conspiracy.
As to 9/11 conspiracies: those seem to come from all directions, and neither of the major political parties have ever done anything to associate themselves with that nuttery.
Don’t even get me started on McKinney, that woman is a whack job. That said, she probably has the same effect on the Democrats that Bachmann has on the Republicans. I don’t think these two, obviously wacky, politicians tie their parties to the conspiracy theories that they believe in. For instance, I don’t think the majority of people think the Democrats are Truthers nor do I think the majority of people believe the Republicans think all Democratic House members need to be investigated for un-American activities.
Regarding demonstrations, I agree that nuts of all stripes show up, but that does not necessarily paint the party. The anti-war and anti-Bush demonstrations have nothing to do with the Democratic party and only Limbaugh listeners and other right wing true-believers tie them together. Those people, like the anti-globalization nuts that protest the G8, may vote Democrat more often than they vote Republican, but they don’t represent the party, nor do they have any sway with the party. Look at how those people are now unhappy with President Obama and his decision to expand the war in Afghanistan and defend some of the Bush Adminitration’s intelligence policies. Regardless, these people, as far as I am aware, do not protest at events organized by the Democratic party. I challenge you. Find a Democrat run town hall meeting or a campaign event where they talk about Sarah being pregnant instead of her daughter or the thing under the jacket or Bush cancelling the election or any other conspiracy theory. You do this and I will find you 5 Republican sponsored events where a large portion of party members accuse Obama of being a terrorist, a Muslim, a foreigner, or all three.
As far as stealing the election, this one I will give you. But let’s face it, the 2000 election was unprecedented. Al Gore won the national popular vote and the election was basically decided by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court in a contreversial decision. I know that if all the votes were counted (as they afterwards were), Bush would have won in most of the scenarios, but this is besides the point. I don’t doubt that there were party members at Democratic Party events in the following years that loudly decried this decision publicly. Does this really rate as a conspiracy theory though? Regardless, I don’t think the Democratic party harped on voting irregularities during 2004 and 2008 anymore that Republicans did. Look at the big Republican conspiracy theory around ACORN for instance.
Anyway, I don’t think the Democratic party is as tarred by the nuts as much as the Republicans (YMMV). At Republican events, there were all sorts of people spewing conspiracy theory rhetoric about Obama. Not so much at Democratic events. I never saw footage of people at Democratic campaign events spouting conspiracies about Sarah Palin or even George Bush, at least not like at the Republican events where the entire crowd cheers when they call Obama a foreigner or Muslim.
At worst, it’s like Will Rogers said: “I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.”
I am not sure how this is germane. Are you implying that the Nobel committee are Democrats?
I am staggered that 23% of Americans are at least doubtful whether Obama was born in the US.
In general, I don’t believe that any conspiracy involving more then one person will remain secret very long (yes, I am aware that a conspiracy must involve more than one person–draw your own conclusion). But I would like to review the circumstantial evidence that Bush acted as a tool of a conspiracy to act for Iran (like Reagan).
They had ample warning of the attack. This is not in doubt. Presumably not of the manner or exact date.
Although they correctly identified the source as Taliban-backed Binladinists and actually attacked Afghanistan, they fairly quickly backed off to attack Iraq. With the result that instead of winning one somewhat justified war, they are fully in the process of losing two.
Although Iran was and is our enemy and Iraq an ally at least against Iran (yes, I am aware of Gulf war I, but that was a skirmish from which Bush Sr quickly withdrew, apparently because he didn’t know what to do with Iraq if he did conquer it). The result is an Iraq a large part of which will quite possibly fall under Iran’s hegemony.
Finally, it was and remains, even under Obama, an excuse to tear up the constitution (always excepting the 2nd Amendment, which is sacred).
Yes. That’s right. I never paid much attention either way. Just found it hilarious how a large part of the blogophere was digging up photos of Sarah Palin’s and her daughter and closely studying and discussing the size of their bellies and breasts and what not.
No. Just that the followers of any organization or event do influence my opinion of the organization. Like I’m repeatedly told that when a demonstration include a non-trivial number of conspiracy whack-jobs, I’m supposed to just ignore that and focus on the remaining. It doesn’t work that way for me.
Appros nothing. did you know that the leader of the most influential Danish opposition party (Socialist People’s Party) in the parliament once demanded of the PM to be told the details “of the US special forces base Fort Bragg which is placed 240 meters under the permafrost of Greenland.” . That’s prima quality conspiracy stuff. I almost voted for him after that.
