Conspiracies: The Left vs Right
The Contrasting Origins of Left and Right-Wing Conspiracy Theories
In an era marked by division and polarization, the nature of conspiracy theories reveals much about the ideologies that drive them. Conspiracy theories from both the political left and right offer an lens through which to examine our current political landscape. However, a key distinction lies in their propagation and endorsement by mainstream institutions. While right-wing conspiracies often emerge from fringe elements and gain traction through alternative media, left-wing conspiracies receive tacit or overt support from established institutions and influential figures. This distinction merits closer examination, especially in light of recent events.
Staged Events
A case in point is the current conspiracy circulating within certain circles of the Democratic Party: the notion that former President Donald Trump staged the assassination attempt on his life. According to this theory, the gunshot that grazed Trump’s ear was either fabricated or misrepresented, with some extremists even suggesting that no bullets were fired at all. What is particularly alarming is that this theory has gained a surprising level of credibility among some members of academia, with even medical professors questioning the official narrative. Joy-Ann Reid of MSNBC is trying to cast doubt and is suggesting that Donald Trump did not have a bullet pierce his ear. Johnathan Reiner, a medical professor at George Washinton University, took to X to cast doubt on Donald Trump’s injuries, suggesting that Trump was not injured at all. I don’t think it is wrong to question official narratives, but the people doing the so-called questioning now are the same people who said that other people questioning events are a “threat to democracy.” You can’t have it both ways.
To understand the implications of this, it is essential to compare this conspiracy with one of the most infamous right-wing conspiracies in recent history: the false claim that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a hoax. Promoted by figures such as Alex Jones, this conspiracy suggested that the tragic event, in which 20 children and six adults were killed, was staged by the government to promote gun control. Jones now faces a staggering $1 billion in damages for the pain and suffering his claims caused the victims’ families. Yet, similar accountability is not being demanded of those on the left who perpetuate equally unfounded claims about the attempted assassination of Trump.
When examining the evidence available in both cases, the contrast is stark. At the time of the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, the absence of immediate video footage led some to doubt its occurrence, though such skepticism was unfounded. The incident took place in an era before the popularity of smartphones, and it is understandable that not every event would be captured on camera. Nevertheless, the volume of corroborative evidence – from emergency calls to eyewitness accounts and law enforcement reports – should have dispelled any reasonable doubt.
In contrast, the attempted assassination of Trump is well-documented, with multiple videos capturing the incident from various angles. Footage shows the bullet's trajectory, the moment it grazed Trump’s ear, and the subsequent panic in the crowd. Photos exist of the bullet mid-flight and the damage it caused to the surrounding area. The sheer volume of visual and forensic evidence makes it wholly unreasonable to claim that the event was staged. If anything, the presence of such comprehensive documentation should have silenced conspiracy theories, yet the persistence of these beliefs among some Democrats is telling. While certain aspects of the events, such as the glaring security failures, should lead people to form their own theories that differ from the official one, the notion that it was staged is unfound and baseless.
One aspect often cited by proponents of the Trump-staged-assassination theory is the reaction of the crowd during the incident. Some observers noted that parts of the crowd did not immediately flee, with some individuals appearing surprisingly composed. The right-wing version of this would be the behavior of some Sandy Hook parents, such as the father who was seen laughing before a press conference, only to become visibly distressed moments later. These observations have been twisted to suggest that both events were staged, leveraging natural, albeit unusual, human reactions to traumatic events to sow doubt and confusion.
However, it is profoundly unfair and misleading to judge people based on their immediate reactions to trauma. Human responses to shock and grief are complex and varied. The parents at Sandy Hook were navigating unimaginable pain, and the supporters at the Trump rally were witnessing a direct attack on a figure they revered. Reactions can range from shock and paralysis to inappropriate laughter as a coping mechanism. These varied responses are not evidence of deceit but rather a testament to the unpredictable nature of human psychology under duress.
The persistence of conspiracy theories about the events of July 13th reveals a troubling aspect of the current Democratic mindset. Polls indicate that a significant portion of Democratic voters entertain the possibility that Trump staged the attempt on his life. This willingness to embrace unfounded theories highlights a broader issue: the erosion of critical thinking and the susceptibility to partisan narratives. It suggests that, for some, the lens of ideology can distort even the most incontrovertible evidence.
Russia, Russia, Russia and Stolen Elections
The theory that Trump colluded with Russia to secure his 2016 victory gained significant traction within Democratic circles and mainstream media. This narrative, often referred to as "Russiagate," suggested that Trump's campaign coordinated with Russian operatives to influence the election's outcome. Key elements of this conspiracy were bolstered by reports and investigations, such as the Steele dossier and the subsequent Mueller investigation. Despite extensive media coverage and political discourse, concrete evidence of direct collusion between Trump and Russia was never established. The belief in this conspiracy was not driven by observable events but by a complex web of allegations and interpretations presented by influential figures and institutions.
Contrastingly, the right-wing conspiracies regarding the 2020 election were fueled by what many perceived as irregularities and anomalies witnessed firsthand. Unlike the abstract and often convoluted claims of Russiagate, these theories were rooted in tangible events that unfolded before the eyes of the American public. For instance, the late-night ballot dumps in several key states, which dramatically shifted the vote count in favor of Joe Biden, were broadcast live, leading many to question the legitimacy of the results. Images and videos of election workers covering windows at counting centers, as well as individuals depositing multiple ballots into drop boxes, further fueled suspicions.
While these observations could be, and often were, explained by various procedural and logistical factors, the immediate visual impact they had on viewers played a crucial role in shaping perceptions. The dramatic shift in vote counts, the opaque practices at counting centers, and the unusual patterns of ballot handling created a fertile ground for doubt and speculation. For many on the right, these were not mere stories told by the media but direct experiences that contradicted the official narrative.
The disparity in how these conspiracies are formed and believed speaks to deeper psychological and sociopolitical dynamics. Left-wing conspiracies, such as Russiagate, thrive on a foundation of institutional trust and the authority of established media and investigative bodies. They rely on the perceived credibility of these sources to construct a narrative that, despite a lack of direct evidence observable to the public, gains widespread acceptance among their audience. This phenomenon is reinforced by a feedback loop where media outlets, political figures, and academia echo and amplify each other's claims, creating an environment where the narrative feels incontrovertible.
On the other hand, right-wing conspiracies often emerge from a place of skepticism towards these very institutions. For many conservatives, mainstream media and governmental bodies are viewed with suspicion, seen as biased or even corrupt. This distrust drives them to place greater value on personal observation and anecdotal evidence. The 2020 election conspiracies are a prime example of this dynamic: individuals witnessing events that seem irregular or unjust feed into a collective narrative of fraud and manipulation. This bottom-up approach to conspiracy formation contrasts sharply with the top-down dissemination seen in left-wing theories.
The consequences of these differing approaches to conspiracy theories are profound. Left-wing conspiracies, endorsed by influential institutions, can lead to prolonged investigations and significant political fallout, as seen with Russiagate. The prolonged scrutiny of Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia dominated the early years of his presidency, shaping public discourse and policy. Even after the Mueller report failed to substantiate the core claims of collusion, the narrative had already cemented itself in the minds of many Americans, influencing the 2018 midterms and the 2020 presidential election.
In contrast, right-wing conspiracies about the 2020 election have led to a more grassroots-driven skepticism towards the electoral process. This has manifested in a range of actions, from legal challenges and state-level audits to changes in voting laws and procedures. The distrust sown by these theories has also contributed to a significant portion of the electorate questioning the legitimacy of Biden's presidency, with potential long-term implications for democratic stability and public confidence in future elections. That is not to say the Russiagate theory has not done the same amount of damage to the political system. It is two sides of the same coin.
Our Insistutions Are to Blame
This phenomenon is not unique to one political side but reflects a broader societal trend. In an age of information overload, where social media algorithms amplify sensationalism and echo chambers reinforce preexisting beliefs, the line between fact and fiction becomes increasingly blurred. The result is a populace divided not only by ideology but by fundamentally different perceptions of reality.
Understanding the origins and impacts of these conspiracies requires a nuanced approach. While it is easy to dismiss them as mere fringe beliefs or partisan propaganda, they reflect deeper societal currents and the evolving relationship between the public and institutions of authority. The left’s reliance on institutional narratives and the right’s emphasis on personal observation highlight a growing divide in how truth and reality are constructed and perceived in contemporary America.
The insistutions have become nothing more that propaganists for the regime, willing to lie and distort the truth to maintain their narrative that they have pushed on the American people. To address this, it is imperative that we foster a culture of critical thinking and media literacy. Institutions, whether academic, journalistic, or governmental, bear a responsibility to uphold standards of evidence and reason. Can those on the right ever trust our insistutions again? Can those on the left ever break away from their undying belief in them?