David C. Stolinsky
Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2002

Some people enjoy spinning conspiracy theories. Perhaps they feel superior by believing they are "in the know" while others remain ignorant. Perhaps they feel reassured by believing the same hateful group is behind all our problems, rather than having to figure out the cause of each problem.

But regardless of the psychological basis of conspiracy theories, one thing is clear – most of them come from the political Left. Here are some examples:

John Kennedy

President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, and books and articles have proposed innumerable theories. Then there is Oliver Stone’s film "JFK," which contains imaginary scenes of American officials plotting the murder.

Almost all these theories blame the Right. For example, the military-industrial complex wanted to increase our involvement in Vietnam. Unnoticed is that Kennedy increased our involvement, and reiterated our commitment, shortly before his death.

Other fictional players include anti-Castro Cubans, who may have felt betrayed by Kennedy’s withdrawal of promised air support at the Bay of Pigs invasion. Then there is the Mafia, which aided Kennedy’s election and may also have felt betrayed. The notion that our only Catholic president was killed by Italian-Americans might be farfetched or even racist, but that never bothered the conspiracy theorists.

These groups might have been angry at Kennedy, but they were hardly the only ones. What about Castro, who was the target of an American-sponsored invasion, as well as assassination attempts? That might cause a wee bit of resentment.

What about Soviet boss Khrushchev, who was bested by Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis and forced to withdraw his missiles? This might be seen as a humiliation of the Soviet Union and Communism itself.

Assassin Lee Harvey Oswald had defected to the Soviet Union and was active in a pro-Castro organization. To the theorists, of course, that was all a "cover."

No, it couldn’t have been Castro; maybe it was the anti-Castro Cubans. It couldn’t have been the Soviets; it must have been the CIA. And it certainly couldn’t have been a leftist misfit. Why? Because the Left blames the Right, and the Left controls much of the media.

Robert Kennedy

Less has been written about Bobby Kennedy’s assassination in 1968, but what was written attempts to find flaws in the police investigation and place the blame on shadowy figures who wanted Nixon in the White House.

As attorney general, Bobby relentlessly pursued the mob and the teamsters. So there was some discussion of whether they might have been involved. But the consensus of conspiracy lovers was that right-wingers killed him.

Who did murder Bobby? Palestinian-born Sirhan Sirhan shot him at close range in front of several people. Sirhan was grabbed, gun in hand, by Roosevelt Greer. Anyone asserting that the former pro football star was sitting on the wrong man must have a feeble grip on reality.

And why did Sirhan shoot Bobby? Sirhan announced it clearly. Bobby was a leading presidential candidate, and Sirhan didn’t want him to become president because he promised to support Israel by selling more jet fighters.

But who blames Middle Eastern fanatics? Who notes that this may have been the first act of the tragedy that culminated on 9/11? Hardly anyone.

Ronald Reagan

You might be surprised to see President Reagan’s name in an article about conspiracy theories. There weren’t any. A president was shot and came literally within inches of death. But there were no theories in the mainstream media.

True, there was a cable TV film titled "The Day Reagan Was Shot," produced by (surprise!) Oliver Stone. The film dwelt on the confusion in the administration, but it glossed over the shooting itself. Why?

John Hinkley Jr. seriously wounded Reagan and others. The young man had seen a psychiatrist but never threatened violence. He claimed he shot Reagan to impress actress Jodie Foster, and he remains confined to a mental hospital.

A medical journal, the Journal of Trauma, reported that Hinckley used explosive bullets, which fortunately didn’t explode. But when the bullet was removed from Reagan’s chest, great care was taken to avoid detonating it.

Although he was very popular, Reagan evoked hostility in many liberals. He was shot two months after taking office. The would-be assassin was an upper-middle-class young man. He used explosive bullets, which are illegal and require criminal contacts to obtain. I have written articles for gun magazines, and I wouldn’t know where to get them. So where did Hinckley get them?

Why was this fact omitted from most media accounts? Why didn’t commentators comment? Why didn’t conspiracy theorists theorize? Why did I have to learn this from a medical journal that is rarely quoted in the media?

The answer seems clear. The large majority of journalists and media moguls are liberals. If there were a conspiracy to assassinate Reagan, the only thing they might say would be, "Who planned it? Who supplied the explosive bullets? Who cares!"

To conspiracy lovers, Oswald and Sirhan were "patsies," but not Hinckley. Why was there deep suspicion in the first two cases, but placid credulity in the third? Perhaps what bothered many of these people was that Hinckley wasn’t a better shot.

There was no reason for journalists or media moguls to expend a drop of ink, an inch of film or a minute of airtime on considering who wanted Reagan dead. The answer was obvious: They did.

Pope John Paul II

Reagan was shot and critically wounded on March 30, 1981. The pope was shot and critically wounded on May 13. Yet few attempted to connect these two events.

A forceful new president is shot and almost killed, before he can initiate his anti-Communist program that eventually helped to bring down the Soviet Union. Six weeks later, a vigorous pope is shot and almost killed, just as he is initiating his program to aid anti-Communist workers in his native Poland – a policy that eventually helped to bring down the Soviet Union.

Connection? What connection?

The would-be assassin, Mehmet Ali Agça, was a Turkish ex-convict who at various times said he acted alone, he acted in the name of Islam, and he acted for a secret group. There was some speculation that he was hired by Soviet or Bulgarian agents, but there was no proof, and speculation soon ceased.

Only now, 21 years later, Tom Clancy endeavors to explain the attempt on the pope in his new novel, "Red Rabbit." But better late than never. And better still, Clancy’s book is honestly classified as fiction, not as history or "docudrama."

Hollywood’s Contribution

I grew up watching movies like "Sergeant York," the true story of a pacifist who came to realize that violent evildoers must be opposed by force, then went on to win the Medal of Honor. But this generation grew up watching quite different films.

"Seven Days in May" was a 1964 film in which our military tries to overthrow a president who wants to sign a disarmament treaty with the Soviets. "The Package" was a 1989 film in which our military tries to kill a president who wants to sign a disarmament treaty with the Soviets. They may be paranoid, but at least they’re consistent.

A stock character is the CIA assassin who goes bad. "In the Line of Fire" depicts one who tries to kill the president. In "Under Siege" one tries to nuke Honolulu.

Then there were the Vietnam movies that showed our leaders as scheming warmongers, our soldiers as bloodthirsty lunatics, and our veterans as unstable losers. But we are shocked – shocked! – when many Americans despise our military, and many foreigners see Americans as evil, meddling incompetents.

Did these films strengthen us or our enemies?

Airliner Crashes

We all recall TWA 800, which crashed shortly after leaving New York. A fuel tank explosion was blamed. Yet reliable witnesses saw missiles rising toward the plane.

So, what did the theorists theorize? The missiles must have been fired in error by our Navy. That they might have been fired by terrorists in a small boat was mentioned and quickly forgotten. The evil, if any, must come from us, not from our enemies.

Fewer people recall KAL 007, which was shot down by the Soviets when it strayed over their airspace. Even though the guilt was clear, what was the theory in this case? The CIA was using the airliner to spy, and the Soviets thought it was a military jet. This fabrication was disseminated in an American TV movie.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, its records revealed that its pilot reported he saw a civilian jumbo jet, but he was ordered to shoot it down nonetheless. And did those responsible for the movie apologize or issue a retraction? Are you joking?

9/11

Arab media proclaim that the CIA caused the destruction of the Twin Towers. That is to be expected from enemy propagandists. But some Americans spread this lie, because it props up their delusion that "it’s all about oil." Some even believe that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, is still alive.

That is, the CIA is so fiendishly clever that it convinced 19 men to die crashing our planes, yet so incredibly stupid that it allows Atta to wander around after his photo appeared worldwide. To believe this is to hate America so much as to become irrational.

Most conspiracy theories, whether liberal or conservative, are false. This is not because people are too virtuous to participate in conspiracies, but because they are too talkative to keep such huge secrets.

In an era when notoriety is valued above all else, and when million-dollar payoffs are made by tabloids, who can imagine scores (or hundreds) of people keeping secrets about 9/11? To believe this is to hate America so much as to become ridiculous.

My point is not that conservative conspiracy theories are superior to liberal ones. My point is that with few exceptions, only liberal theories appear in the mainstream media.

Yes, there are conspiracy theories from the Right, but almost always from the Far Right. Some blame our troubles on the Trilateral Commission, the New World Order or the Bilderbergers. (Give me a Bilberberger with cheese, heavy on the secret sauce.)

In contrast, conspiracy theories from the Left come not just from the Far Left, but from mainstream liberals who dominate our media. That’s why nearly all the theories we see in films, TV, books, magazines and newspapers blame the Right for our troubles.

Instead of seeking real solutions to problems, conspiracy theorists blame their troubles on some group. With the Nazis it was Jews, with the KKK it was blacks and Catholics, and with al-Qaeda and its allies, it’s Americans. Let’s not follow their horrible example.

Conspiracy theories reveal much more about the theorists than about actual events. People should consider this before they spout their latest theory. And the media should realize that their choice of theories reveals their bias.

Dr. Stolinsky is retired after 25 years of teaching in medical school. He writes from Los Angeles on political and social issues. He may be contacted at dcstolinsky@prodigy.net.