Legal Commentary

How should we assess the kookiness of conspiracy theories?  Does a theory become less kooky if enough people believe it?  Does it matter which people believe it -- for instance, whether a large plurality or majority of black voters accept a theory that is rejected by the vast majority of whites? 

Take, for instance, the belief that the federal government deliberately concocted HIV or spread drugs to infect or addict racial minorities.   Obama?s former minister, Reverend Wright, peddled this theory and earned scorn and wide-eyed disbelief from many commentators for being a kook.  But the theory apparently has widespread support among black citizens.   (see article)  These beliefs are not confined to the poor and powerless.  In the December 4, 1991 edition of The New York Post, comedian Bill Cosby said that AIDS was "started by human beings to get after certain people they don't like."  In a Benneton advertisement (see November 12, 1992 edition of Rolling Stone for an example), movie director Spike Lee said, "AIDS is a government-engineered disease." 

To this writer, these beliefs seem utterly kooky.  But should one hesitate to ridicule a conspiracy theory that has widespread support among black voters?  Such support does not indicate that the theory is correct, but it might indicate that the theory?s adherents have a legitimate grievance for which the conspiracy is an explanation.  And that grievance might be a political sin just as great as the alleged conspiracy that serves as a proxy for the real problem.

The CIA obviously did not infect the black population with AIDS.  But the federal government has shown astonishing indifference to the poverty, disease, and drug abuse endemic to mostly black census tracts. The combined state, federal, and local budget devoted to drug rehab is, compared to, say, the combined budget for prisons is shameful. In an odd way, these CIA conspiracy theories might be a source of comfort rather than a source of outrage. The ?conspiracy of indifference? is even more troubling than the allegations of active plotting to kill black citizens: At least those active conspiracies can be stopped by simply arresting the plotters. But how does one arrest governmental and voter indifference?

One might compare such comforting conspiracy theories popular among black voters to anti-affirmative action rhetoric that plays well among white voters. It is obvious that affirmative action cannot possibly explain more than a small percentage of college rejections: There simply are not enough minimally eligible minorities to cut back significantly on college placement of whites. But the rhetorical focus on affirmative action dwarfs any attention to expanding the governmental grant and loan programs that could expand the number of seats in higher education. Again, there is a comfort to believing that the problem can be solved by eliminating a ?racial preference? than by funding higher education.

Perhaps both sides of the aisle, Left and Right, should stop ridiculing the other side's favorite conspiracy theories and start addressing the real evils that inspire them. If the various coalitions to save affirmative action pressed for higher funding for college scholarships, it is possible that anti-affirmative action rhetoric would be less virulent. And if Reverend Wright's many conservative detractors lobbied for higher spending on drug rehab and HIV treatment, it might be that black support for far-fetched conspiracy theories would soften. At least, those critics might be more credible if they devoted as much outrage to the problems of AIDS and drugs as they do to conspiratorial explanations for these problems.