Jared Lee Loughner and the problem with conspiracy theories

We know Arizona shooter Jared Lee Loughner is crazy but a lot of people are currently invested in deciding whether his craziness swings to the left or the right. Concerns about the toxic nature of political debate in the Tea Party era are real and valid, but the attempt to pin Loughner’s killing spree on people that you disagree with isn’t just unsavoury and symptomatic of the cowboys-and-Indians polarisation that is wrecking US politics – it’s false.

On one side there’s conservative howler monkey Pamela Geller, who declares Loughner “a certified lefty nut”. (Her website advertises her latest book, The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America, which of course plays no part in cheapening debate, denying the legitimacy of elected officials and fostering violent paranoia.) She is careful to note that one of his favourite books is The Communist Manifesto but somehow neglects to mention that another name on his reading list is Ayn Rand, who is homaged in the title of Geller’s very own blog. But why nitpick when her stuttering argument collapses completely in the face of Loughner’s final berserk ramble? The ramble is also the shaky foundation for the opposing case, put by Hatewatch’s Mark Potok, who uses it as evidence that Loughner is indebted to the far-right Patriot movement of the 1990s. I don’t want to compare Potok’s measured tone to Geller’s bilious bullshit but he also glosses over the facts that don’t fit and looks for intellectual coherence where none exists.

Read this part of Loughner’s rant and tell me where you’d place him on the political spectrum. “In conclusion, reading the second United States Constitution, I can’t trust the current government because of the ratifications: The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar.” I’d say somewhere between deluded and batshit.

But it’s not unfamiliar. Conspiracy theorist thinking appeals to both left and right, and can forge strange alliances. In the 90s, you’d find rappers and militiamen alike clutching copies of William Cooper’s Behold a Pale Horse, a book about secret societies, government plots and UFOs. Angry, lonely, disempowered young men are especially drawn to conspiracy theories because it makes them feel like vital combatants in an epic struggle.

So when Geller quotes the Twitter stream of Caitie Parker, a former high school friend and bandmate of Loughner’s, as part of her “lefty nut” theorem, I see something different. “he was a pot head & into rock like Hendrix, The Doors, Anti-Flag,” writes Parker. And separately: “As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy.”

Apart from confirming that you should never trust a serious Doors fan, this just makes me think of certain kind of young man who reads a lot of books, smokes a lot of weed and comes up with some far-fetched theories (his reading list includes such counterculture favourites as Herman Hesse, Ken Kesey, Ray Bradbury and Aldous Huxley), only in this case intensified by real mental illness. As Salon’s Laura Miller writes: “A young man whose slide into paranoid schizophrenia has been noticed and addressed probably would favor literature in which maverick truth-tellers are labeled as insane or criminal by self-serving authority figures.”

In this autodidactic stoner cosmology, the government is always up to something nefarious so it figures that during the Bush administration this would have tilted to the left, and the under Obama to the right, without any great philosophical adjustments necessary — the Tea Party thrives on the kind of rebel rhetoric once dominated by the left. To assign him to one side or another is at best mistaken and at worst fraudulent. Laura Miller again: “By studying Loughner’s book list for clues to the political leanings that somehow ‘drove’ him to commit murder, commentators are behaving a lot like crazy people themselves.”

But that doesn’t mean we can’t learn something from Loughner’s twisted logic. Conspiracy-theorist thinking is always out there, and normally it does no harm except to anyone who’s unfortunate enough to sit next to a true believer at a party. Sometimes (see the Wu-Tang Clan) it makes for some terrific music. But occasionally, if the brain chemistry and the cultural mood are both out of whack, it turns into something truly dangerous. The message of the political assassinations of the 60s is not that there are plotters everywhere, but that even lone gunmen are creatures of their culture. Mainstream paranoia-mongers like Glenn Beck and, oh yes, Pamela Geller stir the pot of fear and conspiracy because it’s lucrative and it works, but sometimes they dislodge something nasty from the bottom and it floats to the top. Conservatives can call Loughner a “lefty” all they like, but right now they are the ones stirring the pot with reckless glee.

UPDATE: In a fundraising email, the Tea Party Express calls Loughner a “liberal”. This is one day after the Tea Party Patriots wailed: “To see the left exploit this for political advantage – some people have no conscience. It’s genuinely revolting … I think it sinks to the level of evil.” I’m sure the Tea Party Patriots will be calling up the Tea Party Express right away to express their disgust.

Note: For a primer on conspiracy theories in US politics, especially on the right, you have to read Richard Hofstadter’s 1964 essay The Paranoid Style in American Politics. For an entertaining and thorough takedown of several conspiracy theories, David Aaronovitch’s Voodoo Histories is unbeatable. Sarah Hepola at Salon has written a good piece about the history behind Drowning Pool’s Bodies, the song Loughner used in his YouTube clip.

5 Comments

  1. I’d say that as a student of grammar he likely picked up the control of populace via linguistic means theme via Orwell’s still-excellent notes to 1984. There are many reasons why Loughner can be considered a batshit nutter, but suspecting governments of using linguistics to obfuscate their intentions is not, surely, one of them.

    • I can see there’s a fragment of an idea in there but the prose is straight-up crazy.

  2. Hi 33Revolutionsperminute,
    Thanks, on a related note, I don’t really want you opinion on the subject, just the quality of the article. Thanks

    On January 8, 2011, 22 year old Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a Tucson Safeway supermarket parking lot, killing six, including a nine year old girl, and wounding fourteen, among them Arizona representative Gabrielle Giffords, the alleged target.
    Do you see something wrong with this picture? No, I’m not referring to the obvious problem of an armed man being able to get at point blank range to an individual in the upper echelons of U.S. government. I’m speaking of a far more fundamental issue. Loughner had previously been charged with drug possession and vandalism. While in college both a student and a professor said they feared he would commit a school shooting. He publically listed one of his favorite books as Hitler’s Mien Kampf and firmly believed that the U.S. government brainwashing people by controlling the rules of English grammar. Yet, despite all these… eccentricities, Loughner still managed to legally purchase a gun.
    It’s no secret that the proletariat of America love their guns. And whether it’s the redneck hunter in his tree stand or the CEO with the in-home shooting range, each and every gun slinging American gives the same legal justification for keeping a deadly weapon in their house: the Second Amendment.
    Very few people, even among those who acknowledge that lack of gun control is a societal menace, attempt to challenge the Second Amendment. The apotheosis the Constitution’s framers undergo in elementary and middle school has left their governmental work nigh untouchable. Whenever a voice of reason from the media or Congress dares to speak out against the inflated opinions of early American politicians the unholy trinity of Fox News, The Republican Party and the NRA drowns out logical argument with emotionally charged rhetoric and inapplicable name calling. More often than not the rationalization for the Second Amendment given, if one can be distinguished from among pundits’ insane rants and crocodilian tears, is that firearms will be used against the government when it is seen as monstrous and authoritarian. Well, I’d like to extend my most sarcastic congratulations to the American gun nuts; their hypothetical second revolution finally began in Tucson last week. How glorious it was.
    While I do have reservations about the politicization the Tucson tragedy, it opens the eyes of politicians and the American public those who died will not have died in vain. How many more innocent lives must be lost before we sweep the Second Amendment to its rightful place in the dustbin of history.
    Thanks

  3. I don’t really want you opinion on the subject, just the quality of the article. Thanks

    On January 8, 2011, 22 year old Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a Tucson Safeway supermarket parking lot, killing six, including a nine year old girl, and wounding fourteen, among them Arizona representative Gabrielle Giffords, the alleged target.
    Do you see something wrong with this picture? No, I’m not referring to the obvious problem of an armed man being able to get at point blank range to an individual in the upper echelons of U.S. government. I’m speaking of a far more fundamental issue. Loughner had previously been charged with drug possession and vandalism. While in college both a student and a professor said they feared he would commit a school shooting. He publically listed one of his favorite books as Hitler’s Mien Kampf and firmly believed that the U.S. government brainwashing people by controlling the rules of English grammar. Yet, despite all these… eccentricities, Loughner still managed to legally purchase a gun.
    It’s no secret that the proletariat of America love their guns. And whether it’s the redneck hunter in his tree stand or the CEO with the in-home shooting range, each and every gun slinging American gives the same legal justification for keeping a deadly weapon in their house: the Second Amendment.
    Very few people, even among those who acknowledge that lack of gun control is a societal menace, attempt to challenge the Second Amendment. The apotheosis the Constitution’s framers undergo in elementary and middle school has left their governmental work nigh untouchable. Whenever a voice of reason from the media or Congress dares to speak out against the inflated opinions of early American politicians the unholy trinity of Fox News, The Republican Party and the NRA drowns out logical argument with emotionally charged rhetoric and inapplicable name calling. More often than not the rationalization for the Second Amendment given, if one can be distinguished from among pundits’ insane rants and crocodilian tears, is that firearms will be used against the government when it is seen as monstrous and authoritarian. Well, I’d like to extend my most sarcastic congratulations to the American gun nuts; their hypothetical second revolution finally began in Tucson last week. How glorious it was.
    While I do have reservations about the politicization the Tucson tragedy, it opens the eyes of politicians and the American public those who died will not have died in vain. How many more innocent lives must be lost before we sweep the Second Amendment to its rightful place in the dustbin of history.

    • Odd to have the same article posted by two people with the same request but yes it’s a good piece – passionate and eloquent without getting hysterical. Though I’d avoid phrases like “the proletariat of America” because it looks condescending.


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS