Conspiracies of the Trivial
Ezra Klein's take on the Birther phenomenon is similar to my own:
But if the Birthers are right, then we have a democratically elected president who was raised from infancy in the United States by his American mother and grandparents but happened to be born while his mother was vacationing in Kenya. Shocking! That is a profoundly lame conspiracy. Moreover, as I pointed out yesterday, even if this is true, it is not at all clear that the Birther's legal arguments are sound. At worst, you would have a situation where someone who was democratically elected (and by a large margin) might--through some exceedingly trivial accident of history--be arguably ineligible to hold office. And even in that situation, it is utterly inconceivable that any judge would rule in favor of those seeking to disqualify him from office. Meanwhile, Congress would almost surely pass a bipartisan law or resolution (as they did with John McCain) clarifying that someone born to a vacationing U.S. citizen is a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution.
I think the key to grading conspiracy theories is to imagine how entertaining a movie they would make if true. The Clintons kill Vince Foster and then fake his suicide? Entertaining. Bush and Cheney stage 9/11 in order to gin up public support for war? Very entertaining. A teenage mother from Hawaii gives birth while on vacation abroad and lies about it. Boring!
Almost all the questions directed at the Birthers focus on their dubious factual assertions, and that's understandable. But I'd like to see them asked why it matters whether Obama was born in Honolulu or on a brief overseas trip? How is the future of our republic affected by the truth of that matter? Should the significant majority of Americans who voted for Obama be denied their choice of president because of an utterly trivial matter of historical happenstance?
There's something I don't understand about the Birther movement. Something serious. Something fundamental.Exactly. The Birthers are often compared to the 9/11 Truthers, but the latter group is at least obsessed with an important historical event. If the Truthers are right (and I don't for a second believe they are), then the official story of 9/11 is false. That revelation would have profound historical and political ramifications and would shake this country to the core.
Imagine Barack Obama was born in Kenya. So what?
This isn't like Bill Clinton murdering Vince Foster and running drugs through the Arkansas airport. It's not like George W. Bush having foreknowledge of 9/11. As I understand it, the argument here is that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, but that his mother said he was born in the United States and even had relatives lie to that effect. Presumably, she also told young Barack that he was born in Hawaii. The big reveal here is...what? That Barack Obama's American mother desperately wanted to be certain that her infant child had American citizenship?
It's about as lame a conspiracy as I can possibly imagine. This is like charging that his mother and father smoked pot and baby Barack got a contact high. It's a conspiracy theory for the sake of being a conspiracy theory. It has, in practice, precisely zero implications for the character or comportment of Obama. I guess the dream is that it would disqualify him from office, but it wouldn't even do that. And so long as we're going to run Obama out on a conspiracy, wouldn't you want something that would actually turn the rest of America against him?
But if the Birthers are right, then we have a democratically elected president who was raised from infancy in the United States by his American mother and grandparents but happened to be born while his mother was vacationing in Kenya. Shocking! That is a profoundly lame conspiracy. Moreover, as I pointed out yesterday, even if this is true, it is not at all clear that the Birther's legal arguments are sound. At worst, you would have a situation where someone who was democratically elected (and by a large margin) might--through some exceedingly trivial accident of history--be arguably ineligible to hold office. And even in that situation, it is utterly inconceivable that any judge would rule in favor of those seeking to disqualify him from office. Meanwhile, Congress would almost surely pass a bipartisan law or resolution (as they did with John McCain) clarifying that someone born to a vacationing U.S. citizen is a "natural born citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution.
I think the key to grading conspiracy theories is to imagine how entertaining a movie they would make if true. The Clintons kill Vince Foster and then fake his suicide? Entertaining. Bush and Cheney stage 9/11 in order to gin up public support for war? Very entertaining. A teenage mother from Hawaii gives birth while on vacation abroad and lies about it. Boring!
Almost all the questions directed at the Birthers focus on their dubious factual assertions, and that's understandable. But I'd like to see them asked why it matters whether Obama was born in Honolulu or on a brief overseas trip? How is the future of our republic affected by the truth of that matter? Should the significant majority of Americans who voted for Obama be denied their choice of president because of an utterly trivial matter of historical happenstance?
posted by A.L. at 9:24 AM
31 Comments:
"But I'd like to see them asked why it matters whether Obama was born in Honolulu or on a brief overseas trip?"
Why? Remember, the same rationale that has led them to this point will still rule the day. Getting Obama to Kenya is the starting point. Then you get a "Madras Muslim" school, anti-American sentiment, jihad, father was a founding member of Al Queda, etc.
"Why? Remember, the same rationale that has led them to this point will still rule the day. Getting Obama to Kenya is the starting point. Then you get a "Madras Muslim" school, anti-American sentiment, jihad, father was a founding member of Al Queda, etc."
Except...
Kenya is a majority Christian country and 'Barack' is an African Christian name of Hebrew extraction ('Barak', meaning 'thunder', the name of a hero from the book of Judges who killed 'Midianites'... /Arabs/) that came to Kenya from Ethiopia via Ethiopian Christian missionaries who considered themselves descended from King Solomon.
Not precisely the name Madrasa-educated terrorists are lining up to give their kids.
"Kenya is a majority Christian country..."
Except..
you are using rational thinking. If one wishes to engage in rational thought, in this instance, one would never get to discussions regarding history, family culture, etc., because, as you know, the Hawaiian birth cert is real!
The point is getting over 1 hump, whether in this case it's the birth cert. or legal/constitutional definition of "natural born citizen," etc., doesn't mean suddenly the wingnuts will argue rationally! It's merely on to the next nutty premise!
I think the contrast between the Birthers and the 9/11 "Truthers" is overdrawn. As others here are noting, there IS a big claim somewhere back of the Birther nit-picking, namely that Obama is really an agent of America's enemies -- the same fear, as I understand it, that led to the natural-born-citizen requirement in the first place. True, they're not really making this claim in any rational way, but as others here are noting, what's the surprise that they're not being rational?
As to the Truthers, they have very similar trouble. I got stuck talking to one at a party about a year ago, and killed maybe 45 minutes feigning interest in 9/11 conspiracies to see what he had to say. (It wasn't a real interesting party.) The guy couldn't explain why the government would go to the trouble of knocking down the buildings with explosive charges, then faking videos of planes hitting them, while presumably spiriting away four commercial flights and their occupants to parts unknown and getting hundreds of other people to go on TV and say they'd eyewitnessed aircraft hitting the buildings. Why not simplify all this and just claim that al Qaeda set the explosive charges themselves, or even arrange to have real planes actually hit the buildings? (A government this diabolically skillful can surely make that happen, either by tricking someone into flying them or flying them by remote control.) The theory didn't make sense even in its own terms, let alone in real-world terms.
In short, I came away thinking that this was conspiracy theorizing for its own sake, just as you're saying about the Birthers. Maybe they just don't make conspiracy theories like they used to. At least in the old days, the Bavarian Illuminati were thought to be actually running the world and stuff.
My take on the 911 'truthers'?
Take a quote from Jefferson Smith's comment above: "A government this diabolically skillful..." and put it into context: The Bush Administration.
That is an oxymoron by any definition!
It's also why I usually dismiss conspiracy theories outright. Conspiracies are very difficult to pull off. They require multiple players moving independently yet in concert, acting their roles perfectly with no mistakes, magically making meaningful evidence disappear, with nobody spilling the beans and all communications hidden. This would be very difficult even for a small highly trained cadre of intelligent professionals. Virtually impossible for a government. Can anyone imagine the Bush administration - notorious for its incompetence - pulling it off?
As a side note, I might accept incompetence as it's own "conspiracy". Say, somebody got nebulous word that "an attack" was likely (as in "Bin Laden Determined to Attack"), and they assumed it'd be something small (!) like a car bomb or toxin, killing only a few expendable day-workers who were probably Libruls anyway. So they decided to let it happen to leverage publicity and change their ratings. Even that's a reach, but not inconsistent with how the Bush admin worked.
What's really amazing is how riled up the 'birthers' get over what's obviously a big charade. Almost frothing at the mouth - for what? If it weren't so ugly it would be silly.
"Except..
you are using rational thinking. If one wishes to engage in rational thought, in this instance, one would never get to discussions regarding history, family culture, etc., because, as you know, the Hawaiian birth cert is real!
The point is getting over 1 hump, whether in this case it's the birth cert. or legal/constitutional definition of "natural born citizen," etc., doesn't mean suddenly the wingnuts will argue rationally! It's merely on to the next nutty premise!"
This is actually sort of my point, to juxtapose just how far from reality and rationality every step of the argument process may be. Pedantic, certainly, but that is one of my flaws.
I think, to a certain degree, discussion of the Birther stupidity only serves to perpetuate it. Much like discussion of Sarah Palin only serves to encourage her. Sometimes all people want is attention.
Yet it is very hard not to say something, as we all know.
The birther movement is the phenomenon that it is because it's all they have.
Not only was the birther brand of conservatism (not to be confused with legitimate conservatism) defeated soundly in the last election, but it's defeat was celebrated in a way that no political defeat had ever been celebrated in this country. At least not in my lifetime. I think it was Frank Rich who wrote that the wild celebrations in the streets we were promised would occur in Iraq finally occurred in this country over the defeat of Bush style conservatism.
They witnessed their country expressing it's hatred of them and now they're bitter. So they need to convince themselves the celebration of their defeat was little more than an illegitimate charade. Hence, the birther movement will never die.
Ok, our hour is up. See you next week.
i am a 911 truther, and i am rational thinker. i have no doubt that those that disagree with the "truth" movement see us as wingnuts, and i guess from your perspective that is fair. of course some facts are assumed, like the planes were "spirited away" (who makes this claim, they hit the buildings, we saw it happen. however there are certianly enough anomolies for rational people to ask questions without being flat-earth wingnuts. i doubt gw bush planned and orchestrated 911, but i also doubt the official version as well. of course all of the readers/commenters here at al's site agree with and trust the american government, right? jfk killed by a lone assasin? rfk? c'mon, people.
the birther argument is just like al said, stupid, boring, and myopic. 911 was a major event that set the stage for generations of americans to think a certian way about certian things. call it what you want to.
-proudliberal
I doubt the official version as well, but suspect the 'cover-up' was more about their dangerous incompetence then some nefarious Plan.
If you dismiss conspiracy stories out of hand then you believe that 6 aircrew involved in the illegal transport of nuclear weapons over US soil all died in separate accidents/suicides in one week. The cause of death in at least one case never being revealed. And you agree that the MSM were right to never have even covered the story.
C'mon, Don't be lazy! Free up 3 minutes of your time and read one of the few reports on the incident:
http://globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=7158
AL,
Like was said in the first comment, the birther thing is just a foot in the door. When they get it into the public consciousness that Obama was born in Kenya, it's a much easier sell that he knew he was born in Kenya. From there, it's a much easier sell that he deliberately hid that knowledge, which makes it easier to ask the "What else is he hiding?" questions.
This is a baby step toward more than delegitimizing Obama. It's a step toward active assertion that he's a foreign agent bent on destruction of the United States. A Manchurian Candidate and his handler all wrapped up in one.
The birther movement is not about anything other than a few racist conservative dimwits being unable to deal with the fact that a black liberal Democrat won the Presidency. Trying to find logic or evidence in this movement is pointless.
In addition to agreeing that no court would rule against Obama on this, let me also point out that Congress, sworn to uphold the Constitution, accepted the result of the Electoral College and declared Obama to be President.
The Constitution does not include an enforcement mechanism for the eligibility clause, but one could certainly argue it was the role of Congress to accept or reject Obama, and they accepted him.
That said, I can answer the question of why the interest in a boring conspiracy.
First, one early version of the conspiracy was that Team Obama scrambled somewhat recently (maybe after his election to the Senate) to place forged documents into the Hawaii archives. THAT would be a cool conspiracy, IMHO.
Now, I don't think that notion survived the discovery of contemporaneous birth announcements in two local papers. That moves us back to a 1961 "conspiracy" involving the three Dunhams and maybe a friendly immigration lawyer. Their goal would have been to document Baby Barack as an American because (a) there are a lot of reasons to value American citizenship, and (b) his status as an American might be helpful in an easily-foreseen custody fight with a proud African father intent on raising his first-born son in the land of his birth, Kenya (or maybe Vancouver, Canada?).
I mostly agree that if that is all that happened, no one should care.
However! It does raise questions about the most transparent Administration in history, ties in to the theme that we know almost nothing about the man we elected President (college transcripts? Senior thesis? law firm billing records?), and would very much reflect on his character *if* he was aware of and propagating the cover-up.
It also ties in to the fact that the media is useless on this sort of thing (e.g., the non-coverage of John Edwards other than by the National Enquirer).
And some of the rebuttal myths, such as the belief that the State of Hawaii has verified the birth certificate presented by the campaign (they haven't), strike me as annoying faith-based initiatives.
Tom Maguire
The 'Birther' (I'm not one) conspiracy theory movement is more important than you think it is. Most significant historical events are touched off by some exceedingly trivial,non-rational, or even nonsensical event. The
most famous example is that of the Sepoy Mutiny (1857) which was preceded by the mysterious and still unexplained 'passing of the chupatties'. Our American Revolution was touched off in part by some loons who dressed up as Indians and committed vandalism against crates of tea.
For that reason I cringed when I saw the interview of Orly Taitz on TV. It was extremely stupid for the condescending hosts to savage her on the air when the plain fact is that most Americans speak more like Ms. Taitz and less like a snotty and insufferable TV host. It's impossible for the average American to watch that interview and not identify with Ms. Taitz. A life-long experience of being put down by elites (and now the additional humiliation of unemployment) would put most Americans automatically in her corner. The correct approach in these circumstances is to let her speak uninterruptedly and to let her make her own craziness plain. If you must then have some one come on afterwards and debunk what she said in a calm and rational manner. The hateful shout-fest was very counterproductive.
Ordinary americans don't have (and can't be expected to have) a nuanced view of the naturalization process or of what the Constitution requires for a President. As a result they'll follow their emotions when deciding what they believe. Remember that this whole Birther affair is not a matter of reasoned discourse and rational analysis. You don't win by being right. This whole thing is a matter of force. And make no mistake, the people are always stronger than the elites when they choose to flex their muscles.
It may be that the Birther thing will pass off with nothing more than a determination on the part of average Americans to take positions which are even more damaging for their own interests than those which they've already taken (e.g., on Health Care).
Or it could, as one of your correspondents suggests, lead to something more sinister. But this I know: don't mock the people (no matter how stupid they are). There's no percentage in it.
Robert H. Consoli
The birthers do not intend to be sensible or rational any more than those who said Obama was a Muslim or and Arab. So to debate them on the facts is to miss the point and waste one's time.
Their whole thing is to be as flamboyantly and provocatively idiotic as possible in order to distract maximum media attention from more important discussions about health care reform. They know the media cannot resist a circus freak show act.
Their intent is to convey an impression of an Administration under permanent siege (just as they did with Clinton). In that sense they are political saboteurs. Rachel Maddow did a nice job last evening in exposing who are the paid lobbyists behind this undemocratic misadventure,
I recommend not debating them. They have no facts or arguments. As soon as you knock down one phony argument or forged birth certificate they will invent another. That's the M.O. ... keep lying, keep dodging, stay on the attack, make it as wildly unbelievable as possible to draw attention.
The only topics of interest (to me at least) is who are the paid operatives behind the nonsense and how to we get mental health treatment for the poor deranged dupes who do the screaming for them.
I'm not a birther but I must confess a sneaking admiration at the skills of the loopy right to come up with these meme-laden campaigns. The Vince Foster "murder" and the swift boat issue stands out, of course. Another one was during the Al gore Presidential bid, saying "he lived in a hotel until the age of 12", evoking images of the kid in The Shining peddling round corridors all by his lonesome. Of course the "hotel" was actually a managed apartment of the type executives stay in while overseas but the dirt stuck to some degree. Another was the quote I read about John Kerry (I paraphrase): "He's the kind of guy who's looking over your shoulder while shaking your hand to see if there's someone more interesting to talk to." I could actually believe that about him, too. The neat part of the trick is the slurs neatly fix on some part of the character that people have unspoken suspicions about. In this case, Obama's outsider status. But I think they're running out of steam here. It's becoming an endless pattern of finding some scandal with every single Democratic candidate that just isn't really plausible anymore.
Considering the lengths people go to have a baby born inside the USA, it's bizzare to think that a young couple, without much money, about to have a baby in Hawaii, would spend a small fortune to travel OUTSIDE the United States, just to have the baby.
It may be worth noting that to many contemporary ears, "natural born citizen" sounds like a citizen who was born vaginally (not via Cesarean section), without painkillers.
I have no clue what recent presidents qualified by this standard.
"natural born citizen" as I understand it (but I'm not a constitutional lawyer) means anyone who's American by birth. Logically, that would exclude anyone who became a US citizen after their birth. BUT Obama's mother was a US citizen when he was born, and at least under current law, if you are born of a US citizen (mother *or* father°) and the nearest US embassy is notified within a certain period (don't remember how long), the child is considered a US citizen from birth.
I have US friends who've been living for a number of years outside the US, and where one of the partners is not a US citizen. After their children were born, they notified the US embassy within the legal delay, and the embassy notified them that their children were considered US citizens from birth. And this was under both Clinton and Bush, it's a long standing, official US policy.
This is not rocket science, although it is reality based, and there's the rub...
Orly Taitz also stated unequivocally that the U.S. Constitution requires BOTH parents to be citizens in order to be a naturally born citizen, so it really doesn't matter, in her mind, whether Obama was born in Hawaii or not. Ow. The stupid, it hurts.
The phrase "natural born" seems a bit odd but maybe it's just trying to exclude people declaring themselves "born again US citizens" like religious folks do with conversions?
My dear Mr. Consoli,
If "most Americans" feel "put down by elites", then it is only because they have deliberately neglected their moral obligation to cultivate their minds. Or, if you would prefer that translated into most-American, they brought that shit on themselves; and they would rather pose as victims than take responsibility for their failure -- let alone reverse it, which is always possible.
Victimhood is addictive. Can you take it or leave it alone?
What's the rule for Supreme Court Justices? Because clearly Sotomayor is not a US Citizen.
MLS, you're on this, right?
"Victimhood is addictive."
â™
Dear Mr. Wilhoit,
Victimhood is addictive, as you say. Even more addictive is the impulse to blame and condemn. The plain truth is that great events are not planned and carried out by elites who have carried out their 'moral obligation to cultivate their minds' as you'd have it. Great historical events are the sum total of the impulses and actions of millions of ordinary people. (Yes, I follow Tolstoy in this.) I foresee disaster for this country for about the same reasons that you probably do. But it won't be triggered by anything we can predict. It will occur because of some 'damn fool thing' that none of us can foresee. It'll be through the 'birthers' or through mob action igniting more mob action as we see in the Town Halls currently under way. Just because the average American is a stupid TV watcher is no reason to disregard or dismiss him or her. Condemnation, as attractive and nearly irresistible as it is, won't be of any comfort when the deluge happens. I say in a paper somewhere (I'll find it for you if you like) that History begins in the psyche. That psyche is shared by millions of Americans. To put down Orly Taitz on TV was just foolishness as far as I'm concerned.
Remember that all the idiots and fools that you think you see among the common people are your civic equals and your fellow countrymen. You're arguing very much like a member of the First or Second Estates in France before 1789. Every-day Americans, like the Third Estate at that time, just want to be something in the political order and like the pre-revolutionary Third at that time, they are nothing. They are nothing not because they're idiots but because the elites in America have taken their effective political standing away from them. (Or didn't you notice the coup d'etat that Golman-Sachs just pulled off against the Treasury?) Sure they act out, sure they're haunted by nonsense, sure they act like damn fools but that's the least important aspect of all of this. You should have a little more regard for your fellow Americans. They don't have to be like you (or me) to be worthy of your consideration. I'm sure we agree on most other things but I'm very much in earnest on this point.
Best to you,
Robert Consoli
Robert, seriously...
We shouldn't mock someone as obviously deranged and ignorant as Orly Taitz?
Instead we should... what?
Treat mad gibberish with the same deference as serious opinions, thereby giving it credence it in no way deserves? You must be joking.
In one sense, you're right:
She shouldn't have been mocked on tv. In fact, she shouldn't have been put on tv in the first place, as her madness is little different from the kind spouted by streetcorner lunatics.
- HarilessMonkeyDK
Anonymous, seriously.
There's a famous story in 'The Religions of Man' by Huston Smith.
It takes place in a Zen monastery in the nineteen-fifties. At that time, among Zen cognoscenti it was customary to show contempt for the Buddha. Even to spit on his images. An American zen monk was walking with a Japanese colleague. In the course of their walk they came to a statue of the Buddha. The American ostentatiously spit on the statue. But the other monk made a deep bow. The American said, 'I'm confused. I thought we were supposed to spit on the Buddha.' The other monk said simply, 'You spit. I bow.'
Anonymous, you are answered.
You spit. I bow.
Of course Orly Taitz is spouting mad gibberish and millions of idiotic Americans believe her. Your error (from my perspective) is supposing that truth value means anything in these circumstances. If one of your close friends, for example, started spouting mad propositions then you would, I suppose, take your friend aside and explain his madness to him (or her). You would explain to him the effect that his mistakes are having on others, on his career, on his spouse, etc. etc. You would strive, by trading truth-propositions, to modify his opinions (or at least his manners). Being factually right would count in such a circumstance. But you are not in that kind of dialectical relationship with Orly Taitz. Orly Taitz is the concretization of a social movement with which you cannot enter into that kind of relationship. With a social movement you have to think strategically. The Dialectic is useless at that point. From the strategic point of view the TV interview was madness. Mocking her can only have the effect of pushing undecided people into the birther camp. I confess that I don't know what the right thing is to do about the 'Birthers' (if that statement can even make sense). But I do know that being right on this issue (to engage in the Dialectic) is next to useless when you're actually confronted by a Birther. To think that being factually correct on this is useful is YOUR delusion.
Best,
Robert Consoli
delSarto -- or, if you prefer, Robert,
While your argument reeks of erudition, on at least one point you are completely wrong. Mockery, far from turning people off, is incredibly effective in swaying public opinion.
The hoax with the fake Kenyan birth certificate did more to discredit the birthers and Orly Taitz than all the reasoned arguments put together.
My dear Alcohol, or do you prefer Ethanol? (Just kidding.)
Once more I take pen (keyboard?) in hand to defend the American moran. You say that the fake Kenyan birth certificate did 'more to discredit the birthers and Orly Taitz than all the reasoned arguments put together.'
You're right that we disagree on that point because it's a dubious assertion at best.
Numbers, numbers, my dear Alcohol.
Mockery is the favorite pastime of the web and I'm not on a crusade to change it. But mockery (in my view) is no more effective against the Birthers than the Dialectic. I, personally, don't care to mock or argue with the Birthers; I have better things to do. My letters are intended to serve as a small warning (for those who can hear it) that they should beware of broad social movements in which millions have invested emotional energy. The fact that they don't make any sense is the least of our concerns. With respect to the anti-Obama forces we're beyond the point where being right matters.
'Reeks of erudition'? Hmm. O.k., since that's the case I refer you back to the Sepoy Rebellion of 1857 and you should once more read the story about the cartridge. Thinking is always more effective than mockery.
Best,
Bob Consoli
delSarto, or perhaps, Bob,
Where your argument breaks down is when you say things like "thinking is always more effective than mockery".
Do, please, explain to us how you force someone to think.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will happily mock, with or without the participation of the object of our mockery.
If numbers prove a point, you are free to point to any that provide evidence for your thesis. Because thus far, you have shown us nothing but factoids.
The numbers will come. Wait a few weeks until somebody does a follow-up on the poll which measured how many people find the birthers or their beliefs sensible.
Meanwhile, we need as much mockery as can be mustered.
Dear Robert "Bob" Consoli delSarto (?).
Yes, I "am answered", but the answer is, at best, a non sequitur,
and at worst wilfull misdirection.
A "broad social movement"?
The Birthers?
I hope not.
But even if they were, so what?
That would only mean that MORE corrections of their lies would be called for, not LESS.
Your claim is that nothing will convince them... And for most of them, I would agree that this is true.
But my "mission" isn't to convince them. It's to get accurate information out to those who might not yet be certain.
- HairlessMonkeyDK
The key to the Birther "faith" is Race.
Can't come to terms with a black President? Well, then you can believe he is not legally President, and your cognitive dissonance is magically removed.
It also ties in with the rage of those who thought that membership of the Conservative movement would give them a "permanent majority" and perpetual access to power.
Sad, really - the last kick of the Southern Strategy.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home