The Last Book I Read

Back when I was in grad school, I remember some classmates and I debating why there are so many conspiracy theories in American history. We more or less concluded, based mainly on dialectical reasoning as opposed to actual research, that it had something to do with the often unclear and occasionally convoluted lines of decision-making that exist in a democratic system. Or, to put it more simply, in the absence of some absolute power calling the shots, it's easy to lose track of how things actually get done. As a consequence, and especially amongst those not paying close attention, it's easy to imagine some behind-the-scenes puppet-master pulling the strings. We followed up our discussion by drafting on a blackboard an amazingly complex chart depicting a massive web of connections tying together individuals who might conceivably be implicated in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. By the time we were done, we had come close to proving that just about everyone was a suspect (six degrees of Kevin Bacon has nothing on six degrees of JFK).

If David Aaronivitch's analysis is accurate, and he makes a very convincing case, then we weren't too far off with our theory (on conspiracy theories generally, not in relation to Kennedy-- that was just a lark). Recounting a number of twentieth century conspiracy theories, he proceeds to debunk each in turn, but also is careful to demonstrate the unique historical context that fuels each in turn (though one of the interesting features revealed in his work is how characteristics of one theory provide some foundation for elements of another emerging even generations later-- the fabricated Protocols of the Elders of Zion is particularly pernicious in that regard). The last chapter addressing the reasons why most of us are susceptible to at least wanting to believe these fantastic tales is especially fascinating, and striking to me in the way he ties together elements of history, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and even literary theory (part of his conclusion reminds me of ideas I first encountered in a essays by Leslie Fiedler) to make his case. I'd say he's done a remarkable job of proving his point, but I doubt it will have much impact. The kind of constructive skepticism practiced by Aaronivitch (like any good historian) involves more than just doubt (that's a quality conspiracy theorists have in spades). It also requires some follow-through research and thought, and that doesn't appear to be of much interest to conspiracists, who mostly only seem to require a minimal amount of reinforcement from one another to turn their concoctions into articles of faith among the gullible. Gee, thinking back, I sure hope anyone who saw our blackboard chart on JFK knew it was a joke-- if not, someone might be running around under the delusion that Jerry Lewis is some kind of Cuban secret agent.