Election Count Conspiracy Theorists Get the Math Wrong

Yogi Berra supposedly said, “It ain’t over till it’s over.” The only official election count is the final, verified count of every single vote. Everything else is just a projection – an estimate, a sample.

When election results or projections don’t match the final count, well, people start spreading silly conspiracy theories. Sports help us understand that.


A Sports Analogy

So, for the moment, let us think about elections like a sport. Suppose the New Paris Porcupines meet the Old Heathen Hedgehogs on the gridiron. With one minute to go in the fourth quarter, the Porcupines lead by 21 to 8. The Porcupines have 72% of the points, and the lowly Hedgehogs only have 28%. The Porcupines are running away with the game! The Hedgehogs don’t have a chance!

Then, disaster strikes! The Porcupines fumble the Hedgehogs’ onside kick. The Hedgehogs’ worst player scoops up the ball and runs for a touchdown! Add an extra point! The score is 21 to 15! Horrors! The Porcupines’ devoted fans cover their faces in terror!

High School Touchdown

Ready for another onside kick, the Porcupines crowd up to the kicker, only to watch the ball sail over their heads to the 10-yard line. A Hedgehog scoops up the bouncing ball and, before you know it, the whistle blows, and the Hedgehogs win, 22 to 21.

Sports fans call that a come-from-behind triumph. But what if the Porcupines’ fans are politicians? That changes everything:

“We were winning with 72%, and then lost in only one minute! That proves bad scorekeeping! The Hedgehogs cheated! Throw the spiny fuzzballs in jail! Forfeit their season! Lock up the refs! It is impossible to lose when you lead by that much in the last minute! Statistics don’t lie! The refs should have stopped the game. It was all but over until the Hedgehogs cheated! Cheaters!”

Obviously, say the politicians, this must be football fraud. The numbers prove it!

That is nonsense. Sports fans know that teams can have a different score in every quarter. Newsreel touchdowns happen. Something similar is true in elections.

In fact, this is a perfectly fair comparison. Let us look at why.


Estimating the Final Vote

Typical Election Cheating Post

Let’s suppose we are counting votes in Political City, USA. Political City has two precincts. Precinct #1 is a rich suburb, packed with Republicans and their SUVs. Precinct #2, however, is on the poor side of the tracks. Most of the voters are Democrats, many of whom hobble around in poor health and prefer to vote by mail. Political City has about 40,000 voters, but budget cutbacks left them with too few poll workers. Counting all the ballots will drag on and on. And on and on and …

All the same, everyone is excited to know whether Pat Psychopath or Chris Sociopath will win the mayor’s race. Long before the complete vote is tabulated, the local news wants to get a quick sample to find out who won. We can’t wait for days to hear the final count. I mean, seriously, think of the suspense! Nerve-racking!

That’s where statistics might help us. Statisticians take samples to estimate the final count. Does that work? Maybe, maybe not. It mostly depends on how you collect the sample.

Sampling Method #1: We collect all the ballots. But we don’t count them yet. Instead, we dump all the ballots into a huge, dry tub. We blindfold three honest poll workers, and they stir all the ballots with broomsticks for 30 minutes. The ballots are now completely mixed up. The rich Republicans, the poor Democrats, and voters who don’t fit into any category are all randomly mixed.

Now, still blindfolded, the three honest poll workers yank a thousand ballots out of the tub and those ballots are counted first. Do those thousand ballots predict whether Pat or Chris is going to be the next mayor? Well, with a certain margin for error, they probably do. It is remotely possible, of course, that by sheer bad luck the thousand ballots could be almost all Republicans. In that case, the thousand ballots would show that the Republican will win, even though the final count might say the Democrat wins. Still, most of the time – not all the time – but most of the time – a thousand ballots picked at random will closely but not exactly predict the final result. That’s because the thousand ballots were chosen fairly and randomly, and every voter had an equal chance to be included.

Anyway, let’s imagine that Sampling Method #1 correctly estimates that Democrat Chris Sociopath will be the next mayor.

Sampling Method #2: Most of Political City’s Republicans voted in person using electronic machines (which also create a paper ballot trail), and their votes are easy to count. The Democrats, however, mostly voted by mail. They are harder to count. Their ballots need to be opened, and the signatures must be verified. Then the ballots must feed into a scanner, and then the scanner’s information shuffles off into the main computer. There’s nothing wrong with that rigmarole, but it takes time. Now, since everyone is eager to know, the news reports the count two hours after the polls close. That count includes 20,000 votes! Half of the voters! A much bigger sample than we got with Method #1! A huge sample! The count for Method #2 mostly includes Republicans, since they were easier to count, and, when we look at the numbers, we think that Pat Psychopath will the election by a huge, huge margin. Maybe 72% to 28%! So, we all think that Pat will become mayor and ruin Political City.

However, once all the Democrats are counted days later, it turns out that Chris Sociopath won the election by 10 votes. We count and double check, since the election is so close, but it comes out the same every time. Chris won. Congratulations to Chris, and it will be Chris, and not Pat, who gets to make a mess of everything and ruin the town.

The difference between Sampling Method #1 and Sampling Method #2 is not the number of ballots in the sample. That matters, but less than you would think. No, the difference is how the sample was created. With Method #1, the sample is fair and every Republican and every Democrat, not to mention every independent and every confused voter, has an equal chance to be in the sample. However, with Method #2, although the sample is huge, it is not fair. Few mail-in ballots are included. Fewer Democrats have a chance to be included. Therefore, the sample from Method #2 is inaccurate, because Republicans are a bigger part of the sample from Method #2 than they are of the voting population.

So, if we project the election from Method #1, we will probably (not always, but probably) come close to the final result. If, however, we rely on Method #2, where the sample is unfair, the sample might not resemble the final tally.

Worse, all sampling introduces some error, probably 4% or 5% even using the best methods. The closer the election becomes, the more important sample errors become – since the sample will never exactly match the proportion of the entire population – and so it takes longer to produce a valid estimate. If the election is close, we might never have a valid estimate. That’s just how statistics work. The projections and the early reports are never the final total. That is why even the smartest news networks cannot calculate or even estimate accurate election results when the election is super-close.

“It ain’t over till it’s over.”

Remember – and this is critical – the only count – and I mean the only count – that means anything is the final tally that has been tabbed up, verified, double checked, and reported to the authorities. Everything you hear, either from the media or the voting officials, before we have a 100% verified count, is an estimate – an educated guess. That educated guess comes either from Sampling Method #1, which is often but not always right, or Sampling Method #2, which is typically wrong. An incomplete vote count is only a sample—and, worse, an incomplete count uses Sample Method #2. A count of 98% of the votes is still just Sampling Method #2. If the educated guess takes a long time, or if it is occasionally inaccurate, well, that doesn’t prove that anyone cheated. It only proves that samples do not always work, and that unfair samples often fail.


Down with the Conspiracy Theories

So, when Gripey Garrett gripes on social media, “My candidate was winning with 90% of the vote counted, but now she is losing,” all that means is that Gripey Garrett was using Sampling Method #2, and you should never trust Sampling Method #2.

Now, in the real 2024 election, Democrats tend to live in cities, and cities can take longer to count because they have more voters. How long does it take to count all the votes in a village of 500 people? How long does it take to count the votes of a million people? Also, Democrats often mail their ballots or drop them off in collection boxes. Those ballots need to be opened, verified, and fed into scanners. That is why it is not unusual for Democrats to need longer to count. When we see an early surge in Republican counts, followed by a surge in Democrats, well, that’s often just the process of counting. The early voting reports use Sampling Method #2. And you can never trust Sampling Method #2. Basic math.

So, if you want to prove that someone stole an election, you need to find evidence of the actual stealing. The fact that voting percentages change as the ballots are counted only means that you are using Sampling Method #2.

Earlier Post: Don't Expect Same Day Election Results

  
Earlier Post: Were the Polls Wrong in 2020? And, if so, Why?

And, finally, congratulations to the Hedgehogs for their great victory! Hail to the Hedgehogs, good work. They played play hard to the end! The first, second, third quarters were not the whole game. The score after three quarters is just Sample #2. The fourth quarter still matters. The last 60 seconds still matter. We aren’t shocked when a team comes from behind to win. Likewise, we should expect voting percentages to change while the counters count. That’s just math.

Every eligible American citizen should vote in every single election. Never miss. Never forget. And always inform yourself before you vote. Never trust Sampling Method #2. Thank you, and God Bless the United States of America.
 

by William D. Harpine

______________________________

P.S. How do athletic teams sometimes overcome late scoring deficits? Other than pure luck, the winning team might have more endurance. Maybe the losing team gets cocky and celebrates too soon. Each quarter is different—the score from quarters 1 through 3 is just Sampling Method #2! A come from behind victory isn’t cheating. It’s just sports. Only the final score counts. 

Lever-Style Voting Machine

P.P.S. Is it possible to cheat in an election? Of course. American elections were often (not always, but often) crooked as recently as my youth. Unsupervised partisan operatives sometimes managed the ballots. That was common practice here in Texas for decades. Elections in many states used paper ballots, and political operatives could erase the ballots, throw them away, or add more ballots if the results didn’t come out the way they wanted. Seriously. Have you never heard of the old (now defunct) Chicago political machine? 

Likewise, mechanical voting machines, widely used for decades, were robotic fraud machines. I watched my vote get mixed up by a mechanical machine in 1980 in Virginia when I tried to vote for Independent John Anderson, and the officials just shoved me out the door. I should have protested, but, in Virginia, in 1980, who would have listened? Modern voting methods are, in contrast, stunningly secure. Is it still possible to cheat? Probably. But you need evidence before you call someone a cheater. Okay? 

P.P.P.S. It's not easy to understand statistics. The math isn't necessarily hard, but the human brain is simply not wired to grasp probabilities. We think in terms of "yes" or "no," not "maybe." All the same, every school should require at least a brief stats course. It could save our nation so much grief...

I Voted Sticker, State of Texas, Nueces County

Touchdown photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of lever-style voting machine by RadioFan, Creative Commons License, via Wikimedia Commons

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Don't Expect Same Day Election Results. Sheesh.

Let’s zap out one ridiculous election conspiracy theory. All over social media, conservative posters insist that they need to know the election results – the actual count – on election night. If they do not see results on election night, they say, it is because the Democrats are using the time to manufacture votes.

This is indescribably ludicrous. Unfortunately, the conspiracy theory spreads because news reports and real life are not the same. 

Final, official vote counts have never been available on election night. Not ever.

Florida, which has one of the most polished election systems (they cleaned up after the 2000 hanging chad debacle), needs about three days to count, verify, and tabulate every vote. Inefficient states like Pennsylvania need much longer. That doesn't make them wrong, just slow. We could get 190 million or more votes by tonight. Some of the votes will be placed on electronic voting machines – which still get checked, verified, and tabulated – while mail-in votes take much, much longer because the envelopes need to be checked and opened, and then the ballots must be scanned. It takes time. 

What confuses people is that – often but not always – news networks broadcast statistical projections. Using huge computers, monstrous databases, and sophisticated statistical processes, they can look at incomplete election results and extrapolate who will probably win any given election once all the votes are counted. Those projections are just educated guesses. The networks are usually right, but they are still, basically, guessing. 

Networks do not produce an official count. Network projections are not final results. 

Worse, if an election is very close (and the 2024 presidential election could be stunningly close), and the early results come within the statistics’ margin of error, then the networks wait before they project the results. The closer the election, the longer they delay. That’s just how statistics work. What if the projections beat the statistical margin of error? Guess what! There is still a (small) margin of error! 

So, no one guarantees that projections are right. Statistics are estimates. The networks are very good at estimating, but they are still just estimating.

A tricky factor is that the networks once based their statistical projections on exit polls. However, many voters today vote by mail, and exit polls no longer mean much. Ignore them.  

Earlier Post: Were the Polls Wrong in 2020? And, if so, Why?

So, when you watch the election results, be sure to distinguish between the official election results – which we will not know right away – and the networks’ statistical projection of what they think the results will be once they are all tabulated.

Appearance versus reality. TV networks do not decide the elections. Only state government officials have that right. They will take their time. Sometimes they will face problems. Everything they do has to be checked, witnessed, and double-checked. That takes more time. So, let them do their jobs. Calm down, and do not expect this very close election to be decided right away. Pay no attention to unhinged conspiracy theorists, political operatives, talk radio hosts, podcasters, or Russian bots. Hang tight, take a deep breath, and wait for the facts. Thank you. 

by William D. Harpine

____________

P.S. Yes, we all love conspiracy theories. Shame on us.

Earlier Post: 

Nutty Epstein Conspiracy Theories: Did Hillary Kill Him? Trump? Putin? Jack the Ripper? King Kong? Before We Believe a Conspiracy Theory, We Need Evidence.

P.P.S.: Follow-up. With 99% of the votes counted by the morning of November 6, the day after the election, networks project Trump to win. Still no official count, of course. However, the conspiracy theories will die--only because Republicans no longer need them. 

Copyright 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image: State of Texas!

Trump and Vance Spread Lies about the Haitian Immigrants. But Here Is My Family's Story.

Immigrants at Ellis Island

If you live in the United States, unless you are 100% Native American, you are an immigrant or the descendent of immigrants.

All the Republican talk (and when I say “talk,” I mean “lies”) about the Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio got me to think about my maternal grandparents. I am thinking about them because their lives were so like those of the Haitian immigrants, and the challenges they faced were so similar. 

Did Trump Reset the Agenda When He Falsely Accused Haitians of Eating Pets?

My grandfather Michael and grandmother Anna left Ukraine in the early 20th Century to escape a terrible potato famine. The Ukrainian economy having long been oppressed by Russian, Austrian, and Polish overlords, the people began to starve when the potato crops failed. The Ukrainian diet consisted of little bits of cheese, wheat pastries stuffed with potatoes, lots of other potatoes, and meat once a year for Easter.  They had small gardens. The Easter meal featured a slice of bologna-like meat. It was not unlike the diet that hundreds of millions of European poor people ate at that time. Opportunities to advance, to gain an education, or even to find productive employment, simply did not exist. A person’s ambition, ability, and dedication were irrelevant.

Desperate, and unable to feed their children, Ukrainians sent many of them to America, the land of

Statue of Liberty

opportunity, where the Statue of Liberty would greet them with the promise of freedom and justice: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

So it was with Michael and Anna. Sixteen years old, Anna stepped off the boat, with minimal paperwork, with few marketable skills, and knowing no English. She made her case to the authorities and walked into the United States. Knowing no Ukrainian, the clerk at Ellis Island misspelled Michael’s last name (doing the best he could) and off to the piers Michael went.

Local charities helped them. They learned that western Pennsylvania’s steel mills were hiring. Michael and Anna each moved there, with nothing to their names. Michael and Anna married. A skilled carpenter, Michael took a mill job. His country fiddling talent made him popular but didn’t really help economically. Anna sold eggs. They never really mastered English (their family and friends could understand their patois just fine). They worshiped at the Ukrainian church. They never had much money until their older children grew up and built them a two-story country home with a huge kitchen, on a lot with generous garden space. Michael made much of the house’s cabinetry.

Michael and Anna raised twelve children. The older children, who were shuffled to the back of the classroom and received little special help, learned English in school and taught it to their brothers and sisters. My mother, one of the younger children, never really learned Ukrainian (she could understand it but not speak it). She was still placed in the back of the classroom, simply as an act of ethnic bigotry. She joined the choir and the debate team. Graduating at the top of her high school class, she was denied the valedictory scholarship, which instead went to a boy. She moved to Washington (like many children of immigrants, seeking work where she could find it) and became an office worker in the Pentagon. Like everyone in my family, she read voraciously.

Others of Michael and Ann’s children included engineers, a nurse, loving homemakers, and two American Army war heroes. My Uncle Peter died in the Ardennes, nineteen years old, fighting against Nazis. Michael and Anna’s grandchildren and great-grandchildren, now scattered across the land, include people dedicated to the law, medicine, and many other professions. Yes, at least one of us became a university professor and author.

Michael and Anna’s story is not unique. It is nothing special. It is repeated, literally millions of times, across this great land. It is the same story that the Haitians in Springfield are writing today.

If you want to make America great, that is how it is done. And, trust me, Trump (himself the grandson of immigrants and husband of an immigrant) has no clue. That same cluelessness, of course, explains why Vance specifically and shamelessly admitted that he was lying about the Haitian immigrants:

“If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do.” [italics added]

His eager voters do not seem to care that Vance was lying. That is because facts and reality do not create their resentment. No, to understand the hostility toward immigrants, we look only to the dark forces of fear and suspicion.

The moral of this story? Yes, receiving immigrants, people who speak an unfamiliar language, sing their own songs, and worship in their own way, does affect the receiving communities. It always does. It is, nevertheless, the American way. Employed immigrants also strengthen our economy and make the US a stronger nation. As a recent article in American Economic Journal: Economic Policy notes, tax-paying immigrants can have an indirect helpful effect on the nation’s fiscal health.

Emigration is even harder than immigration. People leave their native lands, almost always because they are fleeing a nightmare. Immigrants often face suspicion, hostility, injustice, and anger. My mother, her brothers, sisters, and parents certainly did. Yet, they contributed their own small part to making America great.

And, in contrast, as Trump and Vance give their loathsome speeches, they are not just lying about the Haitian immigrants. They are lying about America.

As I have often said, speakers can make their point by telling a story. This is my family's story.

by William D. Harpine

____________

Earlier Posts About Immigration Speeches:

Romans 13, Jeff Sessions, and the Cultural Heritage of Conservative Immigration Policy

How Did Donald Trump's Story about Police Heroes Help Him Make a Point about Immigration?

Copyright © 2024 by William D. Harpine

Image of Ellis Island: Library of Congress, public domain

Image of Statue of Liberty: National Park Service, public domain

Debbie Lesko, Anthony Fauci, and the "Illusion of Proof"

Anthony Fauci, 2020

If you make a claim, it is your job to prove it. Period.

Although often uninformative, congressional hearings certainly get interesting. During a hearing on June 3, 2024, Arizona Congresswoman Debbie Lesko said that former CDC physician Dr. Anthony Fauci had suppressed evidence that the coronavirus epidemic started with a leak from a Chinese laboratory. Fauci responded:

“You said about four or five things, Congresswoman, that were just not true.”

Lesko said:

“Well, we have emails to prove it.”

Fauci retorted:

“But you don’t!”

Lesko’s conclusion?

“Thank you. And I yield back.”

Emails to prove Lesko’s point have yet to materialize. If Lesko had such emails, she surely would have produced them on the spot, or shortly thereafter. Instead, she meekly said, “And I yield back.”

Now, the House Committee did, in fact, publish some emails. They were not sent by or to Fauci. So, emails existed. Emails that proved her claims? Well, no. That is why it was so vital for Lesko to say, “We have emails to prove it:” for she does have emails (who doesn’t?), just not probative emails. She never quoted her supposed emails, which would quickly have shown their irrelevance. A stroke of vagueness, like a magician’s smoke. 

Debbie Lesko

Lesko’s bizarre interaction represents what communication scholar Barnet Baskerville has called “the illusion of proof.” That is, she created the impression that she could prove something. However, she offered no proof at all. This is different from presenting bad proof. The illusion of proof does not mean that Lesko made bad arguments or presented weak evidence. It means that she created the illusion that she was offering proof when she had none. After all, if she quoted the supposed emails, we could determine whether they supported her accusation or not. Unfortunately, they are only a mirage.

Indeed, illusory proof like Lesko misdirects the audience’s attention, just as magicians use smoke and mirrors to make the audience think they have seen something they have not. All too often, politicians create illusions with verbal smoke and imagined mirrors. In this case, Lesko tempted uncritical listeners to believe that she could prove that Fauci had suppressed critical information.

Earlier Post: Trump, the "China Virus," and the Art of Controlling the Agenda by Misdirection

The background here is that, during the congressional hearing, Republican members of Congress lambasted Fauci and spread various bizarre conspiracy theories. One can only speculate that their motive was to divert attention from Donald Trump’s inept response to the coronavirus. By shouting irrational claims, while giving the witness only moments to respond, they played to the more paranoid members of their voter base. They create the illusion that something is going on. In this case, the lab leak theory represents the dubious possibility that the coronavirus epidemic started in a Chinese laboratory, supported or encouraged by American officials.

Earlier Post: Trump Calls Coronavirus “Their New Hoax”

By creating an illusion, Lesko was doing nothing new. Illusory proof has long infested political discourse. In 1950, at the height of the Red Scare, Senator. Joseph McCarthy claimed that he had a list of 58 communists working in the State Department. The list never appeared. Baskerville himself shows how Nixon created illusions in his famous Checkers speech.

For their current conspiracy theory to work, Republicans would need to prove that the coronavirus had an unnatural origin, that it came from a Chinese laboratory, and that Fauci himself was in some way behind the scheme. The conspiracy theory falls apart if even one link breaks. Republicans appeared unable to prove any of the links. Lacking evidence, they manufacture the illusion of proof. Not bad proof. Not questionable proof. Instead, no proof at all. They created only a smoky image behind which lies no evidence whatsoever. Lesko said she has emails. If so, where are they? What do they say? Fauci made the perfect response: “You don’t!” He gave her the chance to produce her proof. He broke the illusion in two words.

Earlier Post: Dr. Fauci's Persuasive Methods: Stay Calm, Give Information, Stick to the Facts. Will That Work?

____________

P.S. Largely forgotten today, Barnet Baskerville was one of the most eminent communication scholars of the mid-twentieth century. More than almost any other researcher, Baskerville brought the field’s attention to the role that public oratory plays in constitutional government. His terrific article on “The Illusion of Proof” appeared in 1960 in Western Speech. Large research libraries can probably find it on a database.

By William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Image of Debbie Lesko: Official Congressional portrait, cropped, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Image of Anthony Fauci: Cropped from a White House photo, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

July 10, 2009: The Day When Hecklers Destroyed the Old Republican Party

Mike Castle

The Republican Party of old died on July 10, 2009, when Republican Congressional Representative Mike Castle made a routine campaign stop to speak to a group of elderly voters in Delaware. Castle was running for the United States Senate in a special election. A perfectly standard, old-school Republican, Castle came to discuss his usual platitudes. He then offered to answer questions. A woman in red raised her hand to ask Castle about Barack Obama’s birth certificate. She shouted:

“I want to know. I have a birth certificate here from the United States of America saying I’m an American citizen, with a seal on it, signed by doctor, with the hospital administrator’s name, my parents, my date of birth, the time and date. I’m gonna get back to January 20th and I want to know, why are you people ignoring his birth certificate?”

A heckler yelled, “Yeah!” The crowd clapped and cheered. A heckler screamed, “he was born in Kenya.”

The woman in red said that her father was a World War II veteran, a member of “the greatest generation.” She shrieked, “I want my country back.” More cheers and applause.

Looking as if his eyes were glazed over by car lights, Castle calmly commented:

“He is a citizen of the United States. You’re referring to the president there, he is a...”

Well, that was the end of that. The crowd stood, almost as a body, and loudly recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

Castle checked his watch and tried to move on to another questioner.

Someone soon posted a grainy cell phone video of the event on the Internet. The video went viral. Castle subsequently lost the Republican primary to an ill-equipped opponent, who in turn lost the general election.

Evidently, various Barack Obama birth certificate conspiracy theories had been circulating on talk radio, conservative television, and the Internet for weeks before Castle’s speech. The elderly, apparently all-white crowd had obviously absorbed the conspiracy theory’s every bizarre detail. In contrast, Castle had, as far as I can tell, never heard of the nonsense. In more general terms, Castle discovered that day that rational discourse has no standing in a speech community that is ruled by unreason.

The birth certificate conspiracy theory did not prevent Barack Obama from being reelected in 2012. Nevertheless, Mike Castle’s explosive experience demonstrated the stunning extent to which unfounded beliefs, many of them conspiratorial and racist, have come to dominate the Republican Party. Donald Trump’s 2016 election was driven largely by denying that Obama was born in the United States. Since then, conspiracy theorists have defeated basic public health measures, called climate change a myth, and warned of the supposed Great Replacement of white people. The unfounded belief that Democrats stole the 2020 election was a predictable outgrowth. The nation’s real problems are increasingly ignored as millions of voters drown themselves in a sea of absurdity.

Never Humiliate Your Opponent: Obama Ridiculed Trump's Conspiracy Theory

Castle never had a chance. The crowd drowned out his response. They interrupted him by shouting, clapping, and bellowing the Pledge of Allegiance. Political discourse gave way to rude, boorish heckling. Castle’s timid attempt to introduce reality into his campaign appearance met, not only denial, but derision and disrespect. His crowd listened to only one perspective: a perspective founded entirely on lies. 

Castle’s appearance before what should have been a friendly crowd at a seemingly innocuous event marked a pivotal rhetorical shift. On that sad day, the Republican Party’s discussion of genuine issues gave way to conspiracy theories. The party shows no sign of recovery. Mike Castle’s political destruction at the hands of conspiracy theorists taught Republican politicians a lesson that they have not forgotten: reality no longer wins conservative hearts. After all, politicians are simple creatures who only want to win elections. Furthermore, the birth certificate conspiracy theory, the origin of all present-day conservative conspiracy theories, did not represent just one political smear. On July 10, 2009, Republican politicians learned to bow down to their party’s most despicable elements. Since that day, they face a harsh choice: support the conspiracy theorists, or face absolutely certain electoral defeat. Mike Castle’s disastrous campaign appearance ended Republican politicians’ willingness to embrace the truth. Heaven help us.

Speeches about Conspiracies: How Can We Tell Whether a Conspiracy Is Real?

"OK, Boomer:" Chlöe Swarbrick Teaches Us How to Put a Heckler Down Flat

_________________

P.S. The origin of the birth certificate conspiracy theory is that Hawaii, like many other states, has computerized its vital records to improve efficiency and security. FactCheck.org examined Obama’s birth certificate in August 2008. They concluded:

“FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as ‘supporting documents’ to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.”

Hawaii’s Director of Public Health and Governor both personally inspected Obama’s birth records and found that they were correct. Hawaiian newspapers had published a report of Barack Obama’s birth the next day. The birth certificate conspiracy theory lacks even the remotest merit. 

All the same, while truth desperately grasps for a tenuous foothold, birth certificate conspiracy theories continued to circulate as late as 2023.

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024, William D. Harpine

Image: U.S. House of Representatives, via Wikipedia

Conspiracy Theories and the Burden of Proof

Recently, media personality and former licensed psychologist Dr. Phil (Phillip Calvin McGraw) propounded a conspiracy theory about Chinese immigrants:

“If they’re working in farming, if they’re working in industry, I promise you they are expected to do certain things. Are they spying? Are they sending seeds back from farming to China? Are they getting plans from industries they’re working on?”

Dr. Phil was off track. The person who wants to challenge existing policies or beliefs carries the burden of proof. Critical thinking fails when public figures, or the public at large, ignores that long-tested standard of argumentation. When reason collapses, so does the republican system of government. In 2024, our leaders face a constant battle to disprove bizarre conspiracy theories—when there is no reason to believe the conspiracy theory to start with. And questions are not proof! 

Notice that Dr. Phil only asked questions. He proved nothing. That is how conspiracy theories hatch from their rotten eggs. Questions and conjectures never prove anything. Never have, never will. They’re just questions. If you make a point, prove it! Burden of proof is the most basic principle of dialectic, without which critical thinking falls to pieces.

Presumption

The burden of proof must overcome presumption. When we presume that existing policies and beliefs are correct, that doesn’t mean that they are. It only means that to expect the present system to defend itself against every wild accusation leads to chaos. Society would collapse in confusion. Analagously, in a United States law court, the court presumes that the defendant is innocent. That doesn’t mean that there is any evidence that the defendant is innocent! It just means that to draw random people into court and require them to prove that they never committed this or that crime would surely cause injustice. Can you, dear reader, prove with evidence that you were not the masked bandit who robbed a liquor store on January 8, 2013, at 7:50 PM? Probably not. However, fortunately for all of us, the court presumes that you are innocent.

Likewise, we presume that only living people cast ballots. We presume that the people who count election ballots under supervision, following the provisions of law, will count them accurately. Does that mean that the ballots are absolutely accurate? Of course not. Instead, it means that people who challenge the ballots have the burden of proof. Let’s turn to that key idea.


Burden of Proof

In Elements of Rhetoric, Bishop Richard Whately showed us how to adapt the idea of burden of proof from common law courts.

In public policy, burden of proof has two contexts. First, anyone who challenges existing policies and beliefs has the burden to prove that those policies and beliefs are wrong. When, and only when, appropriate and solid evidence has been produced, yes, someone needs to defend the present policies and beliefs. The second is that a person who makes a factual claim has the burden to prove it. You can’t just say, “I think that the Mafia killed John Kennedy, and you need to prove that I am wrong.” That unwisely shifts the burden of proof. Likewise, you can’t just ask, “are the migrants actually Chinese spies?” Questions prove nothing.

So, did dead people vote in 2020? Good question, what is the proof? Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani commented, after Donald Trump lost in Michigan in 2020: “we’re going to be looking at dead persons’ ballots, which may actually be very, very substantial.”

Does that prove anything? No, of course not. It’s random speculation, akin to a question. Giuliani did not say that he could prove that dead people voted. He said that he was going to look at it. He also said that it “may” be substantial. In other words, he tried to reverse the burden of proof, when he, in fact, had no proof to offer. Questions and conjectures prove nothing. Not ever.

In any case, when FactCheck.org asked the Trump campaign to prove that dead people voted, they revealed only one case of a single dead person who voted (for Trump!)

Indeed, FactCheck.org was generous. After all, Giuliani had never accepted his burden of proof, and there was, under the rules of dialectic, no need whatsoever even to respond to his question. A sufficient response would be to say, “prove it!” If someone says that mail-in ballots were forged and that the proof is coming soon,” the first response is to say, “you have not fulfilled your burden of proof. I’ll wait until you show evidence, and then I’ll respond.”

Fact-checking organizations like PolitiFact.org and FactCheck.org perform a noble, thankless service and I wish people would pay more attention to them. Unfortunately, however, fact-checkers by their very nature accept the conspiracy theorists’ reversal of presumption. It is not the fact checkers job to prove that conspiracy theories are wrong. It is the conspiracy theorists’ job to prove their claims. If we fact-check an unproven claim, sometimes all we accomplish is to reset the debate on the ground that liars and scoundrels have chosen for themselves. Actually, all a fact checker should need to say is, “Dr. Phil asked whether Chinese spies are crossing the border, but he provided no evidence that they are.” Or, “Donald Trump claims that there was a ballot dump in Pennsylvania, but he never proved it.” Wait for the burden of proof; if the proof never comes, then, well, case closed. And insist that the case is closed. Poof.


Conspiracy Theories

People do ask many questions these days. Are there questions about the 2020 election? Were mail-in ballots cast fraudulently? Did dead people vote? Are immigrants crossing the southern border to spy for China? Or, going back, can Barack Obama prove that he was born in the United States?

As Professor David Zarefsky pointed out in 1993, conspiracy theories are as old as American politics itself. Conspiracy theorists (like Rudy Giuliani or Dr. Phil) often claim that their opponents have secret agendas. Can conspiracy theorists prove their conspiracies? Usually not! Conspiracies are secret! Still, without evidence, a conspiracy theory is just wild speculation.

Earlier Post: Speeches about Conspiracies: How Can We Tell Whether a Conspiracy Is Real?

Indeed, Zarefsky points out that conspiracy theorists throughout history routinely try to shift the burden of proof. They want us to believe things that they cannot prove. That road leads to madness.

Conclusion

Some conspiracy theories turn out to be true; most do not. The difference is evidence. Sadly, conspiracy theorists succeed when the public, failing to recognize the obligation to prove a point, accepts dubious, unproven claims. Critical thinking is absent. That is why, to have a healthy republic, listeners must grasp how to evaluate the different disputes that people contend. 

Burden of proof and presumption are not factual claims. They are part of the procedure of dialogue and debate that help us think critically. If we ignore the rules of debate, we mire ourselves in a swamp of confusion and disorder. So, a person who debates public policy must offer evidence.

Or, follow this ancient idea: an argument has only two parts—state your case and prove it. Everything else is decoration.

Earlier Post: Critical Thinking on the Cheap

___________________

Richard Whately

Research Note:

Whately explains burden of proof in his wonderful 1828 book, Elements of Rhetoric. Any present-day argumentation and debate textbook will give a brief, easy to understand explanation. For example, Austin Freeley’s superb book is widely assigned in college debate courses.


Personal Note:

There is nothing wrong with saying that you do not know something. Are Chinese spies crossing the border? I do not know. I will await evidence.

By the way, do schools do an adequate job of teaching critical thinking? I'm just asking a question, not making a claim--what do you think? 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright © 2024, William D Harpine

Image of Richard Whately, public domain in the United States, published before 1928, via Wikimedia

Matt Gaetz, Sedition, and the Politics of Fear

“Years ago, whenever I entered the USA, I had to sign a declaration that I was not intending to overthrow the American government by force. I never realised that this applied only to foreigners.”

British actor John Cleese tweeted that interesting tidbit about Donald Trump and his recent indictments for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election. 

Speaking next to Trump at a campaign event on August 12, 2023, Representative Matt Gaetz advocated using force to overthrow the United States government:

“We know that only through force do we make any change in a corrupt town like Washington, DC.”

So, a member of the United States Congress advocated insurrection and disloyalty to the United States Constitution. Trump hesitated but then nodded sagely as Gaetz offered his chilling words. The mainstream press briefly noted Gaetz’ seditious comment and then calmly moved on. How do people betray their country and yet call themselves patriots? 

All the same, Gaetz offered his justifications. That is, he implied that mysterious powers threatened ordinary Americans, evil powers that can be resisted only by force. This twist led Gaetz to reject legitimate, peaceful political action:

“Mr. President, I cannot stand these people that are destroying our country. They are opening our borders. They are weaponizing our federal law enforcement against patriotic Americans who love this nation as we should.”

Gaetz was channeling common but obviously hyperbolic Republican talking points. Republicans hear diatribes about supposedly open borders and the allegedly unfair treatment of the January 6 Capitol rioters so often that they take them for granted. Indeed, Gaetz polarized the American people. “These people that are destroying our country” contrasted against the “patriotic Americans” who were convicted of rioting in the Capitol building. 

Broadening his conspiracy theory, Gaetz accused unnamed forces of threatening every Republican:

“Know that they are coming for our movement and they are coming for all of us.” [italics added]

The unnamed “they” might be the Deep State, the Illuminati, the FBI, woke people, the New World Order, or, for all I know, any combination of the malevolent forces that populate right-wing conspiracizing. Gaetz’ vagueness—“they”—let the cheering audience fill in the blanks from their own imaginations.

Earlier Post: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Both Suffered from Talking Points Disease in 2016

Was Gaetz’ rhetoric particularly unusual? No, it was not. Gaetz talked the way people talk when they commit wrongful deeds. Dr. Albert Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement shows how people justify their unethical behavior by reframing moral issues. From SS soldiers who justified mass murder as “following orders” to more complex reasoning patterns, people find ways to rationalize doing harm. They think of themselves as good people even as they perform horrifying acts. The bizarre talking points that Gaetz parroted gave otherwise patriotic Republicans a shallow (but evidently convincing) way to reframe their destructive intentions.

So, in real life, the violent overthrow of the United States government is, as John Cleese implied, massively unpatriotic. Sadly, too few people seem to care. The Republican Party received Gaetz’ brief speech with rousing cheers and no peep of protest. Lincoln, who fought to save the Union, weeps.

by William D. Harpine

Related Posts: 

Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address: “The Better Angels of Our Nature”

Steve Bannon's Value Voters Summit Speech: Rhetoric of Polarization

Stephen Breyer's Retirement Speech Reminded Us That the United States Is an Experiment

Adolf Hitler’s “Christian Nationalist” Speech

Speeches about Conspiracies: How Can We Tell Whether a Conspiracy Is Real?

© 2023 William D. Harpine

Image: Official photo, US Congress, via Wikimedia

“Truth Buried by Lies:” The Serious Side of Joe Biden’s “Dark Brandon” Speech

Joe Biden, WH photo

United States President Joe Biden ended his speech at the April 29, 2023 White House Dinner by slipping on a pair of sunglasses and joking about “Dark Brandon.” In between the first part of the speech, which told a series of political jokes, some tasteful and some not, and the concluding sunglasses, the president made a serious point about journalism. His point was a moral one. Dark Brandon did not tell the correspondents to get better at critical thinking. He told them, and the nation at large, to get better at honesty.

As our political world is increasingly dominated by conspiracy theories and wild accusations, too many members of the public begin to wonder what is real and what is not, which sources are trustworthy, and which are not. Too often, people responded exactly the way the liars prefer: we became cynical about everyone—including the people who are telling the truth. In a world spinning with lies and mistrust, we find ourselves unable or, more likely, unwilling, to sort out what is real from what is outrageously false. This is not just a matter of critical thinking: it’s being willing to think. It’s a matter of being willing to accept the truth of things we don’t like. It’s a matter of being prepared to face truth, and to realize the truth is better than error.

So, Biden warned that falsehood was dominating the United States’ political discourse:

“As I said last year at this dinner, a poison is running through our democracy and parts of the extreme press. The truth buried by lies, and lies living on as truth.

“Lies told for profit and power. Lies of conspiracy and malice repeated over and over again, designed to generate a cycle of anger, hate, and even violence. A cycle that emboldens history to be buried, books to be banned, children and families to be attacked by the state, and the rule of law and our rights and freedoms to be stripped away. And where elected representatives of the people are expelled from statehouses for standing for the people. (Applause.)”

Indeed, the recent Fox News-Dominion lawsuit uncovered massive evidence that Fox News hosts knew perfectly well the Democrats did not steal the 2020 election, but reported otherwise because it was profitable to tell lies. The Fox News debacle, however, is only the latest in a long, dishonorable string of anti-communication events. State and local officials throughout conservative areas have embarked on a massive, disgraceful effort to remove books about civil rights from school shelves.

Students of persuasion have known for centuries that credibility is by far the most powerful tool that a speaker can wield. Yet, the underlying theme of cospiracy theories is not to establish credibility, but the opposite: to delegitimize the idea of truth. To destroy the very concept of credibility. We live in a world in which a majority, not a mere fringe, of Republican voters continue to endorse the ridiculous lie that the 2020 election was stolen from them. As absurd accusations and wild conspiracy theories swirl around like killer hornets, people begin to wonder whether anyone can be trusted. More insidiously, they begin to wonder whether maybe the truth is in the middle, that maybe some portion of the conspiracy theories might have some validity. In what is sometimes called "bothsidesism," people move toward a soggy middle ground where truth and lies live in balance. People begin to think that the middle, the moderate view, is to believe some truths and some lies. That only seems fair, I guess. That, really, is the ultimate danger. After all, a constitutional republic depends, above all else, on a functioning flow of information. 

This is a moral issue, not just a political question. It is not just a question of whether we do or do not know how to engage in critical thinking. No, it’s a question of whether we are willing to engage in critical thinking. Are we willing to step up and distinguish between truth and falsehood? Are we prepared to reject ridiculous but comfortable lies? Are we willing to recognize other people’s rights as equal to our own?

So, Dark Brandon called out extreme forces in politics and the media alike who spread falsehoods and suppress knowledge. Ultimately, it all needs to come down to us, the citizens of the United States of America, does it not? Can we welcome truth even if it does not support a particular perspective; can we open our eyes and minds to knowledge that makes us feel uncomfortable? Using the bully pulpit, the rhetorical power of the presidency, Biden put on the dark glasses, but asked us to take off our blinders. He reminded the assembled journalists that there is a difference between truth and falsehood. Of all our rights, the rights that make a constitutional republic possible, by far the most important is the interchange of ideas. If the news media fail us, where else can we go?


Michelle Wolfe versus Donald Trump: Who Was Worse? The 2018 White House Correspondents' Dinner

Former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch Worked Hard to Establish Her Credibility

Why Did Jay Sekulow Propound So Many Conspiracy Theories? Why Are Conspiracy Theories Persuasive? I Have Some Scary Thoughts about Those Questions.

Speeches about Conspiracies: How Can We Tell Whether a Conspiracy Is Real?

Was Biden Divisive When He Defended Constitutional Government?

Joe Biden, official photo

The people whom “the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars,” while, in contrast, the people “they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth,” wrote H. L. Mencken and George Jean Nathan.

This statement was made by journalists long ago, but it has never been more obvious than it is today. Lies are being sold as truth while the actual truth is buried beneath the lies.

On November 2, 2022, President Joe Biden spoke about the future of American democracy. He directly targeted Republican falsehoods and conspiracy theories, the January 6 riots at the United States Capitol, and ongoing efforts to intimidate election officials. This totally normal speech, which could equally have been given at an American Legion speech contest, instantly became controversial. The speech is all about stories. Biden presented a narrative of Republican conspiracy theories. Republicans, in turn gave their own counter-narrative. 

Biden’s rhetorical approach was extraordinarily clever. In particular, he used stories to make his point. In fact, he wove three different stories from three different events into a single compelling narrative. Instead of proving his points with the usual boring facts and statistics, Biden told stories. Stories are good. Stories work. Speakers need to tell more stories. Yet, for every story, there can arise a counter-story.

Story #1: The Pelosi Attack

Biden's speech began with a story about the horrible attack on Paul Pelosi, when a right-wing conspiracy theorist broke into the Pelosi family home and smashed his skull with a hammer. Biden told a convincing story that had the advantage of being true. His opponents establish a counter narrative. The substance of the Republican counter-narrative is that Biden is divisive by calling out his opponents’ lies. Unfortunately, Mencken and Nathan once again turn out to be right—the people whom “…the American people admire most extravagantly are the most daring liars….”

The attacker presumably had mental health issues. Republicans responded, for the most part, not with sympathy, but with a series of crazed conspiracy theories.

So, what about those counter-narratives? Unfortunately, days before Biden gave his excellent speech, prominent Republicans had already established a counter-narrative: a narrative that the Pelosi attack was staged as an attempt to make Republican conspiracy theorists look bad.

The Paul Pelosi Attack: Top Republican Conspiracy Theorists Shocked by a Violent Republican Conspiracy Theorist

Is There Such a Thing as a Stupid Question? The Attack against Paul Pelosi Led Conspiracy Theorists to Make Bogus Arguments 


Biden gave a simple narration of the attack:

“Just a few days ago, a little before 2:30 a.m. in the morning, a man smashed the back windows and broke into the home of the speaker of the House of Representatives, the third-highest-ranking official in America. He carried in his backpack zip ties, duct tape, rope and a hammer.

“As he told the police, he had come looking for Nancy Pelosi to take her hostage, to interrogate her, to threaten to break her kneecaps. But she wasn’t there. Her husband, my friend Paul Pelosi, was home alone. The assailant tried to take Paul hostage. He woke him up, and he wanted to tie him up. The assailant ended up using a hammer to smash Paul’s skull. Thankfully, by the grace of God, Paul survived.”

So, Biden told his own a story that had the advantage of being supported by evidence and reality, but his story cannot easily overcome the horrifying, utterly false conspiracy theories.

Story #2: The Capitol Riots

Next, however, and this was his speech's heart, Biden directly tied the attack against Paul Pelosi to the January 6th attack on the United States Capitol.

“All this happened after the assault, and it just — it’s hard to even say. It’s hard to even say. After the assailant entered the home asking: “Where’s Nancy? Where’s Nancy?” Those are the very same words used by the mob when they stormed the United States Capitol on January the 6th, when they broke windows, kicked in the doors, brutally attacked law enforcement, roamed the corridors hunting for officials and erected gallows to hang the former vice president, Mike Pence.

“It was an enraged mob that had been whipped up into a frenzy by a president repeating over and over again the big lie, that the election of 2020 had been stolen. It’s a lie that has fueled the dangerous rise in political violence and voter intimidation over the past two years.”

That comment led Biden to his third story, when he narrated threats against honest election officials:

Story #3: Threats against Election Officials

Biden's last story told of election officials who were threatened by people who didn't want them to to their jobs:   

“Election workers, like Shaye Moss and her mother, Ruby Freeman, were harassed and threatened just because they had the courage to do their job and stand up for the truth, to stand up for our democracy. This institution, this intimidation, this violence against Democrats, Republicans and nonpartisan officials just doing their jobs, are the consequence of lies told for power and profit, lies of conspiracy and malice, lies repeated over and over to generate a cycle of anger, hate, vitriol and even violence.”

The argument through all three stories was that a culture of hateful lies caused all three evil events. 

The Narrative Style  

Biden 's narratives have the virtue of being true. Sometimes, alas, that is not enough. 

The Republican conspiracy theorists continue to deflect attention from the connection between those two horrible events. This led Republican Senator Mike Braun to write that, “President Joe Biden took to the podium to give one of the most divisive and ugliest speeches I've seen given by a sitting president.” did he disagree with any of Biden’s stories? No, in fact, he ignored them, he instead complained about “fuel prices, crime, and our economy: changing the subject, resetting the agenda. Braun complained that, instead of talking about the economy or crime, “Biden shouted angrily at half the country from Washington’s Union Station.” There, we see two different agendas, two perspectives.

In a twisted sense, Braun had a point. Yes, Biden spoke out strongly against liars, and that was divisive.

Liberty Bell, Photo by William Harpine

Indeed, fully 61% of Republican voters falsely believe that Joe Biden did not legitimately win the 2020 presidential election. Their belief is based entirely on lies and conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, Braun was right, in a sick sense. Biden was, indeed, divisive. He made a division between truth and falsehood. He made a division between good and evil. He gave the Republican Party a chance to rejoin the values of the American system of government. So far, I see every sign that they intend to decline. Biden's speech challenged the typical Republican voter's most cherished belief: that Trump won the election, making Biden an impostor.

From that viewpoint, Biden's stories were genuinely divisive: his stories laid out the truth, and he divided himself against people who tell lies (not that Biden always tells the truth, but...). Unfortunately, tens of millions of Americans continue to live in a sea of lies. These lies translate into votes. 

Here's another way to look at it. With his speech, which reminded Americans about the rule of law and the dangers of political violence, Biden gave MAGA voters and their leaders a chance to rejoin America. It appears that they have refused.

Stories are good and Biden gave a wonderful speech, but not everyone tells the same story.

Biden on the Soul of America: Was He Unifying or Divisive? Or Both?

_______________

Technical note: For an academic look at narrative argument, see the work of the late Walter Fisher. 

In his book The Rhetoric of Motives, the great rhetorical theorist Kenneth Burke wrote eloquently that all unity and identification implies a division. 

Is There Such a Thing as a Stupid Question? The Attack against Paul Pelosi Led Conspiracy Theorists to Make Bogus Arguments

A few days after the horrendous attack on Paul Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi’s husband, conspiracy theories continue to flourish. 

Suspicion underlies all conspiracy theories. The newest version of the conspiracy theories use two basic tactics. First, the conspiracy theorists 7ask endless questions. Second, when proven wrong, they view this as proof that they were right. Both tactics are utterly bogus. 

The attack occurred when a deranged right-wing conspiracy theorist broke into Pelosi's home with a hammer. Tricking him, Pelosi surreptitiously called 911. When the police arrived, the intruder grabbed the hammer and smashed Pelosi's skull. 

The initial conspiracy theories, which I discussed in my previous post, disintegrated after the government filed charging documents against the attacker. Those conspiracy theories had falsely implied that the attacker was Pelosi's lover. Instead, it turns out that the alleged attacker, David DePape, was a right-wing conspiracy theorist, not a hippie and not Pelosi’s paramour, that he intended political violence, and that he beat Pelosi with a hammer that changed hands during the incident. Those simple facts totally defeated the conspiracy theories that had flooded the Internet. 

Never fear! Conspiracy theorists are nothing if not flexible.


Conspiracy theorists ask questions, but they rarely have answers

The conspiracy theorist's tried-and-true tactic is to ask endless questions about supposedly suspicious events. Unfortunately, questions are not proof. Questions never prove anything. Not ever. An honest question is an attempt to get information. Conspiracy theorists, however, ask questions to create a dark image while not undertaking the burden to prove anything.

That may explain why, as his initial conspiracy theory fell apart, right-wing filmmaker and conspiracy theorist Dinesh D’Souza simply started asking more questions. He focused on the seemingly innocuous issue of finding security footage of the attack:

“Did the Pelosis not have security personnel or at least an alarm system? No surveillance cameras? Those are pretty standard in nice homes. Moreover, it's a dangerous city and she's the House Speaker. So are they really stupid, or are we not getting the full story?” 

All questions! No actual claims! Nevertheless, look how clever his questions are. Yes, I'm sure we are all wondering about security system failures. Still, asking the question in that tone makes it sound as if the official story has a gigantic hole in it. Yes, like many large cities, San Francisco has crime. At the same time, I have felt perfectly safe walking around various neighborhoods in San Francisco late at night. D’Souza is no doubt playing on conservative tropes that San Francisco is a terribly dangerous place: one conspiracy theory trying to prove another.

Did D'Souza prove anything? No, all he did was ask questions. 

As it happens, D'Souza was not the only conspiracy theorist to ask a series of questions. Similarly, also dealing with the collapse of the original conspiracy theory, pundit Michael Savage of “A Savage Nation” asked more questions about the security arrangements:

“why won't the police release the Bodycam footage? How does a stranger get into a ft. knox local mansion without triggering an alarm? who at this level of gov’t does not have 24/7 security? why was the glass broken out ward not inward?” [all tweets are uncorrected, copied from the original]

It's not that these are bad questions. I am sure that it is time to reevaluate security arrangements for members of Congress. Still, we all know that this was not Savage’s point. His real point—cleverly implied by his questions--is that there is something wrong with the official account of the attack because it is implausible that a break-in could have occurred.

My real point, of course, is that questions never prove anything. Questions, unfortunately, are all these conspiracy theorists have to offer us. Like children who torment their parents with endless questions, conspiracy theorists never relent. 


When conspiracy theorists are wrong, they think this proves they are right

Questions are not the only tactic. When they turn out to be wrong, conspiracy theorists say this proves that they were right all along. Here's how the reasoning goes. Conspiracy theorists think that all the authorities are liars. They trust nothing in official statements. In this case, they are especially upset that anyone would accuse a right-wing conspiracy theorist of committing violence. After all, that makes all conspiracy theorists look bad. That’s why they tried to make DePape out to be Pelosi’s lover. Once their account was proven wrong, however, this merely proves that they were right all along. 

No, that doesn’t make sense. Still, that is how conspiracy theorists talk. Let's look at some examples of how their logic works.

Indeed, “Enigmatic America,” a social media user of no particular prominence, illustrates this rhetorical trope perfectly:

“Police said different at the scene, Pelosi said the guy was his friend, the guy took Pelosi hammer, hit him with it in front of cops according to police. I am sure the statement on video by police is missing now, somewhat on Twitter kept it. Media lies& if u differ, Conspiracy.”

There is a twist in that logic. The initial conspiracy theory, which may have been partly based on incomplete and inaccurate news reports, but which grew mostly from random speculation, turned out to be wrong. Would that slow a conspiracy theorist down? Of course not. When the initial conspiracy theory disintegrated, this proved, to Enigmatic America, that the original story (much of which conspiracy theorists had invented), was incorrect. Therefore, he concludes, the media outlets must be lying.

D’Souza used a similar tactic:

“Pelosi knew the guy. Well no, he didn't. There were 3 people there. No, two. Both guys had hammers. No, only one hammer. Both of them were in their underwear. No, just Pelosi. Is it a surprise we don't believe the narrative when the facts must be heavily edited to conform to it?”

It appears that there was only one hammer, but the two men each held it at different times. Apparently DePape held the hammer, then Pelosi dropped it, and then DePape grabbed it and hit his victim. The conspiracy theorists drew the false conclusion that there were two hammers. When it turns out there was only one hammer, they said the authorities had changed their story. Actually, of course, all that happened is that the conspiracy theorists jumped to a conclusion when they had no evidence. Similarly, when the FBI report said that someone opened the door to admit the police, they thought this this proved that three people were in the home. But that does not follow from the evidence, does it? 

How can being wrong prove that you are right? It can't, of course, but that twisted logic is how conspiracy theorists work. 

In other words, D’Souza’s original accusations turned out to be wrong. He could, of course, admit that he was wrong. Instead, he blamed his error on the authorities. He implies that he was wrong the first time because the authorities deceived him. I'm sure that's always possible (police do sometimes tell lies, as we all know), but, in this case, the conspiracy theorist has been jumping to unproven conclusions left and right and then resented being corrected.

The underlying theme: suspicion!

Once we assume that the authorities are dishonest, we also assume that everything they say is untrue.

This is, however, entirely circular. The conspiracy theorist’s only real goal is to prove that the authorities are evil. The conspiracy theorist proves this by refusing to trust them. At some point, you need real evidence. If one is to be intellectually honest, one must always be prepared to revise opinions in the face of refutation. Since they simply shift ground instead of admitting error, the conspiracy theorists utterly abandon all pretense of integrity.

Now, of course, real conspiracies occur all the time. Criminals, revolutionaries, and other nasty people do conspire with one another. The Watergate conspiracy was real. Real conspiracies are proven by evidence.  In contrast, conspiracy theories, which tend to be untrue, do not produce evidence. That is why conspiracy theorists reach into their imaginations to ask endless questions, to squirm and change their stories constantly, to hold the authorities to a high standard while holding themselves to no standard at all. 

None of this pattern of thinking is new. Over the centuries, conspiracy theorists have spread across the political spectrum.  At the moment, however, what bothers me the most is that an entire political movement--the political party of Lincoln, Grant, McKinley, and Eisenhower--has disconnected itself from reality. That cannot be good. 

_____________

Yesterday's post about conspiracy theories concerning this horrific attack: 

Harpine's Thoughts about Public Speaking: The Paul Pelosi Attack: Top Republican Conspiracy Theorists Shocked by a Violent Republican Conspiracy Theorist