Mistakes are undramatic. We all make them, but many would prefer the drama of sinister motives and conspiracy theories  to the realities of bad judgment and human error. It makes for better headlines and fodder for book titles.

Conspiracy theories are often just thinly veiled prejudices. Behind so many such theories is a distrust of Jews who have been the brunt of endless conspiracies, most notably the endlessly enduring fraud, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

But conspiracy theories are certainly not limited to Jews.  Neocons, the Federal Reserve, and various councils formed to address social, political, and economic problems are often deemed to be mere conspiracies to achieve power and wealth at the expense of the rest of us.  But that fact that so many of these organizations fail at their mission does not mean they are a conspiracy.

Conspiracies usually are the result of preordained conclusions that read for confirmation rather than information.  If I want to believe that George W. Bush was responsible for 9/11 I will be able to collect reports of meetings and events that appear to confirm that theory, and simply ignore any contradictory evidence.  There were similar claims that FDR intentionally grouped our ships in Pearl Harbor to drag us into war.  Many in the Middle East believe that Israel caused 9/11 to drag the U.S. into a war against Islam. They repeat the falsehood that the Jews knew not to go to work at the World Trade Center on the day of the attack.  This theory persists even after Bin Laden took credit for the attack.

If you find yourself falling for a conspiracy theory remember the following:

• Never attribute to a conspiracy that which can be explained with simple incompetence or error.  Humans do tend to err, often dramatically.
• There are few people who can keep a secret.  Just witness the leaks of confidential and privileged information.
• Ask yourself what information would you accept that disproves this theory.  If every bit of evidence that disproves the theory is twisted to just further prove the theory; if  your theory can not be disproven then it is likely a conspiracy theory.  When a Swiss court in the 1930’s determined that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a fraud the Nazis just claimed that was proof that the Jews controlled the courts.
• In the face of irrefutable evidence you can still reach the wrong conclusion. Many conspiracy theories are believed because they rely on facts that are true. But part of the truth can be more misleading than all of a lie. By reading for confirmation, the theorists ignore the conflicting evidence.
• We often prefer the comfort of lies rather than to question our own beliefs.  It is easier for us to believe in a villain than to accept the uncertainty of human fraility.  Unwavering certainty in explaining very complex events is the hallmark of a conspiracy theorist.
• Just because one is well read does not mean the theories they espouse have validity.  The very intelligent and the well educated are not immune from the intellectual biases that accept evidence that supports their views, while rejecting evidence that refutes it.

The best remedy for conspiracy theories is an open mind, skepticism, and curiosity.

In a 2004 article in the Nation, … Paul Krugman wrote that “According to estimates by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez- confirmed by data from the Congressional Budget Office- between 1973 and 2000 the average real income of the bottom 90 percent of American taxpayers actually fell by 7 percent.”  That claim could not possibly be “confirmed by data from the Congressional Budget Office ,” because CBO estimates only go back to 1979.

Mr. Krugman’s highly improbable claim that real incomes have stagnated since 1973 for all but the top 10 percent was later outdone by an even more outlandish claim that real incomes stagnated for all but the top 1 percent.  The AFL-CIO Web site reprinted a graph from an updated version of the Piketty-Saez paper, ostensibly shaowing average real income soaring for the top 1 percent but stagnating “ for everybody else.”  Unfortunately, AFL-CIO neglected to reprint a critical footnote from the Piketty-Saez graph.  That footnote explained that the graphical illusion of income stagnation among the bottom 99 percent was the result of selecting faulty statistics to minimize their income growth. “ From 1973 to 2000,the average income of the bottom 99 percent would have grown by about 40 percent in real terms instead of stagnating… if we had included all transfers (+ 7% effect), used the CPI-U-RS (+ 13% effect), and specifically defined income per capita (+20 percent effect.)

By confining the facts to a footnote, the graph in Piketty-Saez conveyed the false impression that nearly all U.S Households had experienced stagnating real incomes since 1973, rather than a 40% increase. It appears that the Piketty-Saez estimates have been widely reported but narrowly understood.

From Income and Wealth by Alan Reynolds.

HKO Comments:  This is but one of many examples from this very revealing critique of the misinformation we have all been fed about the growing inequality of wealth in this country.  It is disturbing that the sychophant media does such a miserable job validating these preposterous claims, or that a credentialed economist like Krugman would lend credibility to and perpetuate such bad information.  But it is most disturbing that our political leaders have based  their entire economic policy to correct a problem that may not even exist or is at least much less drastic than even they were led to believe.

Such ideologically blind commitment to beliefs and theories is more dangerous than mere ignorance.  We have been materially misinformed about many problems in the political realm. Even, sometimes especially, the most educated are  susceptible to believing what they want to hear.  They jump at facts that confirm their beliefs but are slow at verifying the facts themselves.

It was no surprise that pundits would try to score political points from the  Arizona tragedy.  Calls to curtail the legitimate language of dissent were broadcast before any information on the shooter surfaced.  From Townhall.com Carol Platt Liebau writes Left-Wing Blame Game Won’t Work With Arizona Tragedy.

An Excerpt:

almost 16 years after Oklahoma City – and after seeing similar gamesmanship in the wake of crimes like the Holocaust Museum shooting — Americans have become skeptical of cynical efforts to stigmatize entire ideologies based only on the actions of lone, clearly deranged criminals. That’s especially true where, as here, there’s no real evidence that the suspect actually subscribed to any coherent political creed.

Finally, the political climate has changed, drastically, since 1995. Many (if not most) Americans have just endured two years in which a liberal majority has governed against their own expressed wishes. By doing so, liberal politicians – from the President on down — have aroused widespread, deep-seated opposition among the electorate to an unprecedented degree. In such a climate, people will find it easier to distinguish between insane criminals and law-abiding dissenters from government policy, because they are likelier than ever to be dissenters themselves.

Given all of this, those on the left would be best advised to avoid cheap blame-seeking for political gain. If they persist in the dishonorable effort to discredit the beliefs of millions of Americans based on the criminal actions of just one, ironically, they may hurt their own cause most

at American Thinker Michael Filozof writes The Left, Not the Right, Owns Political Violence.

And blogger Blond Sagacity actually took the time to read about the assailant before commenting Jared Loughner is not a RIGHT WINGER.

In The charlatans’ response to the Tucson tragedy, The Washington Post, 1/11/11 George Will adds (Excerpt):

This McCarthyism of the left – devoid of intellectual content, unsupported by data – is a mental tic, not an idea but a tactic for avoiding engagement with ideas. It expresses limitless contempt for the American people, who have reciprocated by reducing liberalism to its current characteristics of electoral weakness and bad sociology.

HKO comment:

Besides being so factually incorrect, it is a shameless and morally bankrupt act to politicize such a tragic event, and use it to squash legitimate political dissent.  The vast majority of the American people know better.

I had about two dozen postings in American Thinker this past year.  A few for those who may have missed them:

The New Aristocracy

Why Elitists Fail

Finding John Galt

The Price of Equality

The Immorality of Class Warfare

Many of the readers’ comments are well worth the time.

Writing in Townhall.com, Herb London, When Satirists Dominate the Culture.

Excerpt:

Oscar Wilde once argued that “when bad ideas have nowhere to go they gravitate to American universities and become courses.” Surely there is truth in this claim, but only a partial truth. Bad ideas emerge as satire when the nation engages in nervous laughter about what to believe and comedians provide the course for the future.
When every condition is a joke, the nation is in trouble. Americans need relief from quotidian tension; they also need serious reflection on the present state of affairs.