Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11 [Paperback]

Karen Olmstead has written an intelligent analysis of how conspiracy theories have shaped American political life. Her book does not discuss whether the theories are well founded. In so far as she does, she is sceptical of the `skeptics' like the 9/11 `Truthers'. But Olmstead wants to situate the emergence of conspiracy theories as an organic part of American political life (as it were) with its origins in the mainstream, not the lunatic fringe.

Conspiracy theories assume outlandish forms but they have some connection with what has actually happened in history.

First of all, in the 20th Century, for better or for worse, the power and scope of the federal bureaucracy and the Presidency has grown. The executive branch and its intelligence agencies have indulged in actual conspiracies and the government has lied to its people: John F. Kennedy's plots to kill Castro and the Bush administration's false pretext to invade Iraq are examples that come to mind. When Richard Nixon said that the law is whatever the President says it is, he presumably had Presidential precedents in mind. When it came to the abuse of executive power, Watergate was a difference in degree, not in kind to previous examples of executive duplicity and abuse of power in the 20th Century.

Second, the government (again mainly the executive and its intelligence agencies) has itself sponsored conspiracy theories, indirectly creating the mulch in which unofficial conspiracies can flourish. The Cold War was the apogee of government-inspired conspiracy theories but we have seen examples of official conspiracy narratives in recent years, in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Third, the inadequacies of the official version of dramatic events like JFK's assassination, 9/11 and so on have added additional stimulus to the `what are they not telling us' style of thinking.

Olmstead reminds us that the government is no monolith and different arms can be at odds with one another. Bush and Cheney's Saddam-9/11 linkage was not peddled by the intelligence agencies. Nor is the government's official narrative of events necessarily motivated by a nefarious desire to exonerate itself of its own culpability. Lyndon B. Johnson's instructions to the Warren Commission to becalm any talk of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK was motivated by a fear that Castro's agents might have been responsible. He knew after all that JFK had tried to kill Castro, so it wasn't as if Castro lacked a motive. LBJ feared that were such a link to be revealed, he would come under intolerable pressure to invade Cuba, perhaps triggering World War III. Hence LBJ's motives in this respect were entirely commendable.

The actual examples of government conspiracies, bungling, incompetent and frequently risible (Castro's exploding cigars or choosing the Bay of Pigs, Castro's favourite fishing spot, as a staging-post for the Counter-Revolution) do not lend support to the fantastical, occult-like powers that some conspiracy theorists attribute to the US government. The US is an open society and no government can plug all the possible holes through which details can leak. Actual conspiracies can and do see the light of day. The extreme theories have an intrinsic implausibility for this very reason.

However, Olmstead reminds us that psychological theories alone cannot explain the appeal of conspiracy theories: they arise, in part, from actual events that have happened in history. The suspicion that the government cannot be trusted, however exaggerated, is based on some foundation. This provides us with an extra angle to understand what is a political as well as psychological phenomenon, a dimension overlooked by David Aaronovitch's otherwise solid work on conspiracy theories Voodoo Histories, which is subtitled `How Conspiracy Theory Has Shaped Modern History.' Olmstead reminds us that it has actually cut both ways.

Olmstead sums up noting that the tragedy of conspiratorial thinking is that it becomes obsessed with theories to whether the twin towers was a controlled demolition while overlooking the real, documented examples of the abuse of political power. On occasions, such as the Iran-Contra scandal, government agents like Oliver North flaunted this, making no secret of the fact that he and his cohorts had broken the law. So there is no real mystery to be uncovered - it's blatant.

Professor Kathryn Olmsted's book stands out on its topic for it is written by an academic of status (UCal, Davis campus), and published with the editorial rigour of the Oxford University Press. The author's objectivity seems notably better than is typical in this genre, especially from moonlighting opportunist journalists who lack the resource and time to do the research.

A main theme is that governments are often to blame for inducing conspiracy theories, for they use them to try and cover up, often for the personal gain of overly-ambitious politicians. The book captures the latest information on several unresolved issues, and draws parallels between the possible LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) of the Pearl Harbour and '9/11' attacks.

As someone who has lived on five continents over 40 years as a businessman, observing military and diplomatic activities,
this book is highly recommended as reflecting the reality and activities that many elite leaderships would rather keep hidden.

It might be hoped that Olmsted will turn her resources to writing about 'President' Cheney, and his many initiatives since he became deputy/'Chief Mate' to President 'Watergate' Nixon's Chief of Staff Don Rumsfeld in 1970.

This book gives a very original look at why conspiracy theories abound in the USA. There have been so many genuine conspiracies (testing of drugs on unsuspecting citizens by the CIA, making it seditious to question the war in 1917 whilst having been an intensely isolationist nation in the 3 years leading up to that, assination plots, etc), that not believing the government's word has become endemic in America. She was too restrained in her discussion of JFK, the war mongerer who she didn't portray accurately as the man who tried to destabalise Cuba and brought the world to the bring of nuclear war as well as ignoring his responsibility for the killing of hundreds of thousands in Vietnam. But that aside this book is excellent, highly accessible yet detailed and informative. I found it very addictive and a hard book to put down and easy to pick up. (I read this in on my Kindle and it was fine)