The Conspiracy Theory Label: A Weapon of Mass Distraction
A review of Lance deHaven-Smith’s “Conspiracy Theory in America” (University of Texas Press, 2013)
The Founders designed a republic, not a direct democracy—a representative system of government structured around federalism, separation of powers, and electoral intermediaries. The difference is not academic; it reflects a deliberate architecture to guard against mob rule and centralized tyranny..
Frederick R. Smith
Words 1,269 | Read Time 6 min | Enjoy
Introduction: What “Conspiracy Theory” Really Means
If you’ve ever hesitated before mentioning the JFK assassination, 9/11 anomalies, or election irregularities in polite company, you already know: conspiracy theory isn’t just a term. It’s a conversation stopper. In mainstream political discourse, the phrase has become synonymous with paranoia, irrationality, and even danger.
But what if that was the point all along?
In Conspiracy Theory in America, political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith argues that this cultural reflex—to roll our eyes, dismiss, scorn—isn’t the result of healthy skepticism or enlightened rationality. It results from a carefully constructed and weaponized narrative, cultivated by the institutions we’re supposed to trust. This slim but powerful volume challenges the idea that skepticism toward the official story is un-American. DeHaven-Smith insists, it’s the very foundation of American democracy.
The Birth of a Weaponized Phrase
The book’s most eye-opening claim is that the term “conspiracy theory” didn’t organically evolve into a dismissive slur. It was inserted—intentionally—into the public vocabulary by the CIA in 1967 as part of a propaganda campaign to counter criticisms of the Warren Commission’s findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.1
The goal? Not to defend the report, but to stigmatize its critics.
Once implanted, the phrase gained traction and power. It signaled that any suspicion of elite wrongdoing—especially within the U.S. government—was not just wrong, but deranged. It drew an artificial boundary between “respectable” political discourse and its dangerous other, banishing dissenters from serious conversation.
Today, deHaven-Smith shows, this boundary remains intact—and it keeps us from asking the very questions democracy requires.2
From Founders to Flat-Earthers: A Historical Bait-and-Switch
One of the book’s most effective rhetorical strategies is its return to America’s origins. The Declaration of Independence is, deHaven-Smith reminds us, a conspiracy theory: it argues that King George III was plotting to “establish an absolute Tyranny” over the colonies.3 In 1776, the proper response to a suspicious pattern of abuses wasn’t to dismiss it as irrational—it was to investigate, document, and, if necessary, revolt.
By contrast, today’s media and academic establishments treat conspiracy theorizing as prima facie evidence of mental instability or political extremism. In doing so, they inverted the Founding Fathers’ civic ethos, who distrusted power by design and viewed suspicion of government as a necessary civic virtue.4
DeHaven-Smith’s term for this foundational betrayal is high-crime blindness: our increasing inability—and unwillingness—to see elite criminality as real, recurring, and systemically dangerous.
State Crimes Against Democracy (SCADs): Reframing the Debate
Rather than continuing to use the tainted term “conspiracy theory,” deHaven-Smith proposes a new framework: State Crimes Against Democracy, or SCADs. These are not isolated crimes, but concerted efforts by government insiders to manipulate political outcomes and undermine democratic institutions.
Examples include:
The Watergate break-in and cover-up
The Iran-Contra affair
The misleading intelligence used to justify the Iraq War
The anthrax letter attacks following 9/11
The suspicious irregularities in the 2000 and 2004 U.S. elections.5
Some of these are proven. Others remain uninvestigated or superficially examined. But what unites them is the failure of official mechanisms to hold elites accountable—and the success of a cultural vocabulary that discourages even asking the hard questions.
Compartmentalized Thinking: How We Forget What We Know
One of the book’s most striking observations is how Americans isolate suspicious political events, treating each one as a one-off tragedy rather than part of a broader pattern.
We do not, for example, talk about “the Kennedy assassinations” in the plural—even though both John and Robert were political reformers, both were running for president, both were killed within five years of each other, and both deaths cleared the way for more militaristic or conservative successors. Instead, we mentally compartmentalize each event, shielding ourselves from pattern recognition.
The same logic applies to 9/11 and the anthrax attacks. Though closely linked in time, and though the anthrax was later traced to U.S. military labs, we rarely discuss them together anymore. Once it was clear the anthrax wasn’t foreign, the narrative pivoted, and the questions ceased.6
DeHaven-Smith calls this perceptual siloing—a learned cognitive habit that protects the powerful and keeps citizens politically docile.
SCADs vs. Coincidence Theories
While conspiracy theorists are often criticized for making implausible connections, deHaven-Smith argues that official narratives frequently rely on even less plausible coincidences.
For instance, is it more likely that both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were disrupted by the same kinds of “accidental” vote-counting anomalies, or was something coordinated at play? Is it more plausible that 19 hijackers with box cutters outwitted the most advanced military in the world on 9/11—or that certain officials ignored or exploited the warnings?
The answer is not to embrace a single grand theory, but to stop ruling such inquiries out of bounds. We must ask: what mechanisms keep us from even entertaining these questions?
DeHaven-Smith’s answer is clear: the conspiracy theory label itself.7
Democracy in the Age of SCADs
The final chapters of Conspiracy Theory in America are not conspiratorial—they’re constitutional. DeHaven-Smith warns that the real danger to democracy is not belief in conspiracies, but the normalization of elite impunity. If we deride suspicion, suppress investigation, and reward silence, we will drift toward a government of illusions and untouchables.
His recommendations are straightforward:
Statutory reforms to protect whistleblowers and investigators
Independent oversight bodies with real power
A cultural shift that embraces, rather than ridicules, critical inquiry
Suspicion, he argues, is not un-American. It is the republic’s immune system.
Final Thoughts: A Book for Our Time
Ten years after its publication, Conspiracy Theory in America feels even more urgent. In an era of institutional collapse, media mistrust, and state surveillance, it provides a clear and disciplined lens through which to view our political reality.
This is not a call to believe everything. It is a call to stop reflexively believing nothing.
That said, I respectfully diverge from the author’s repeated use of democracy to describe the American political system. While the book draws critical attention to abuses of power, it overlooks a key constitutional distinction: the word democracy does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. The Founders designed a republic, not a direct democracy—a representative system of government structured around federalism, separation of powers, and electoral intermediaries. The difference is not academic; it reflects a deliberate architecture to guard against mob rule and centralized tyranny.
Nonetheless, deHaven-Smith’s work makes a vital contribution. He does what few scholars dare: he takes the taboo seriously. He respects the citizen’s right to doubt, question, and demand accountability—even when the questions are uncomfortable and the answers elusive.
If we are to preserve liberty in the American republic, this may be the kind of thinking that helps save it. 📕
📘 Read the full book online:
Conspiracy Theory in America by Lance deHaven-Smith is available in full via the Internet Archive: Click Here.
Footnotes
Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2013), appendix, 197–203.
Ibid., 5–9.
Ibid., 7.
Ibid., 6–8.
Ibid., 132–146.
Ibid., 16–18.
Ibid., 19–21.
It seems to me that if you don't think that the powerful will conspire with each other for their own benefit you are a little short of a full deck. Maybe an unwillingness to entertain conspiracy thinking should be thought of as a mental deficiency.
The fight is on.
Biden-Appointed Judge Shockingly Rules Against Birthright Citizenship — Ninth Circuit Says Children of Foreign Diplomats Are NOT Automatically U.S. Citizens.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/08/biden-appointed-judge-shockingly-rules-against-birthright-citizenship/
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just ruled that a man born in New York City in 1950 is NOT an American citizen.
The court affirmed what the Constitution’s framers and generations of Americans have always understood: the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats.