Years ago, the threat of an unsatisfactory afterlife (specifically, the threat of going to hell) was the common means for controlling the masses. While religion remains effective in a good many cases, the rise of a more secular population has motivated the invention of alternative approaches.
Mass media, particularly television has become an effective tool for delivering propaganda (today referred to as
spin) and within that umbrella, ridicule has been a particularly effective technique. It often requires only the whispered mention of tin-foil hats to banish an idea to the scrap heap. The fear of being accused of wearing one is enough to silence most people, not just about flying saucers, but about alternative theories concerning subjects as diverse as the Kennedy assassination and about 9/11.
Thought control (or at least speech control) of truly Orwellian proportions can be affected merely by reciting an accusation of being on the fringe. There are numerous recent examples such as the 2000 election or even the invasion of Iraq where public sentiment was clearly manipulated by the media and any dissent from the official story was effectively repressed through propaganda and ridicule. It seems clear that John Kerry was affected in this manner when he so quickly conceded the 2004 election.
Another effective example of ridicule has been to accuse a doubter of believing in conspiracy theories. This kind of accusation arose out of the Kennedy assassination to deride anyone who believed there was more than a single assassin involved. Today, this term carries less weight since it is so clear that the official theory of 9/11 is a conspiracy theory involving, as it does, nineteen mysterious conspirators threatening innocent passengers with utility knives and displaying a remarkable talent for skillfully piloting complex and unfamiliar aircraft.
Yet another example is the accusation of having Fascist, Communist, Socialist or even Liberal views. This kind of accusation seems to work particularly well on people who do not even know what these kinds of views even are.
The suppression of dissent is unfortunate because dissent is so vital for the successful functioning of a republican form of government. In fact it is vital for the proper functioning of human intellect. In order for our opinions to mature properly they must be challenged by others. Without challenge, there is too strong a tendency for people to become fixated on appealing but faulty thinking.
A tendency of human nature is to reach conclusions rapidly and hold rigidly to those quickly formed opinions. No doubt this is related to the fact that our evolutionary history as hunters and warriors placed a considerable premium on fast decisions and decisive action. However, good decisions are, in some instances, more important than quick ones.
Issues of governmental policy rarely require immediate action, and when there is no urgency, an open discussion in which people feel free to raise all objections is a wise approach. In matters of great importance, it seems good advice to cultivate the voices of people with unconventional views, not repress them. A person appearing to wear a tin-foil hat may well have information or perhaps just a perception that reveals significant problems that others, who adhere to conventional opinions, fail to see.
Children see the world in black and white terms. In a child's world, every question has a clear true or false answer and the child expects its parents or sometimes to teachers or to other adults to furnish those answers. Most of us, as we mature intellectually, learn a more nuanced view the world. We come to understand that the answers to questions are often not available and we grow to expect answers often to come in shades of gray rather than strictly in black and white (though there is a minority of the population that does not seem to make this transition, the so-called authoritarian personality, discussed by John Dean in his recent book, Conservatives Without Conscience). A way of thinking about these shades of gray is that for many questions, we just can never expect to determine truth of falsity with great confidence. Rather, we try to make some judgment of probably false or probably true, possibly making some mental assignment of a relative percentage weight to our confidence in truth or falsity.
In this context, learning about alternative theories can be seen to be a quite helpful means for refining our thinking. We do not have to accept an unconventional theory as true for it to aid our understanding. For example, if we have heard only the official theory about 9/11 we may put a fairly high confidence in it. However, as we learn of other theories (there are many), we may well refine our confidence level. Even if we retain a fundamental belief in the official theory, we may slightly revise downward our confidence in it. As we learn of many such theories our doubt may increase considerably even though, if forced to make a simplistic true/false decision there may be no decisive change in our position. This kind of nuanced thinking does not make us unpatriotic. In fact it is what makes us better citizens and more competent voters. Also, many of the unofficial alternative theories are frequently very interesting to learn.
A capacity for nuanced thinking would also seem to be a good attribute to look for in presidents and congressmen. Paradoxically though, our electoral traditions seems to discourage candidates from letting any such capacity show. For some reason, we seem to look for decisive leaders who can make snap decisions and stick to them. The 2006 election taught us that a political candidate should, at any cost avoid being seen to flip-flop. Clearly, the political consultants will encourage them simply to flop.
Afterthought: In reviewing this note, it occurs to me that because I have drawn on it for examples, some readers may be guessing at my personal views of 9/11. I'm a bit of an agnostic on this subject. I think that the official theory is highly unlikely, though parts of it are probably true. At the same time, I do not fully accept any of the popular counter-theories either, though I think that most contain some shreds of truth. I think that what is most likely is that there was a terrorist effort that probably would have failed if the Bush Administration had acted forcefully and skillfully to stop it. I have no strong feelings whether the Bush Administration failed to stop it out of incompetence and inattention or due to collusion, but I suspect there was a bit of each. I am convinced that an independent investigation of the event is warranted, but I do not expect it to happen soon.