The latest conspiracy theory: Bush got “messages” during debate

What follows is an e-mail exchange with a person who has made intelligent contributions to VFR discussions, but whose soundness of judgment I have sometimes doubted. Here, in pushing the “Bush was wearing a wire at the first debate” theory, he adds to my doubts. The basic flaw in his thinking—which is alarmingly common today—is the readiness to believe a conspiracy theory for which there is no definite evidence, and which is vanishingly unlikely on its own terms, for no other apparent reason than that it confirms the believer’s negative views of the alleged conspirators.

Reader to LA:

In light of your discussion with Paul Gottfried on October 1st on the Bush v. Kerry match-up during the debate, I thought that you might be interested in this article at Salon.com:

It looks like Bush had a receiver in his ear for the debate.

LA to Reader:

This is more anti-Bush madness. He gave the WORST PERFORMANCE in the history of presidential debates, repeating the same phrases over and over, failing to expose his opponent’s many vulnerabilities, AND at the same time we’re supposed to believe that someone was feeding him answers? We’re supposed to credit the idea that the Bush team cheated on the debate, setting Bush up with some kind of radio device, in order that he would mechanically repeat the phrases “hard work” and “mixed messages” over and over for 90 minutes?

This is on the same level as saying that Bush lied about WMDs to get us into the war, knowing that the lie would be exposed by his own weapons inspectors after the war.

This is another example of Bush-hatred making people literally irrational.

Reader to LA:

You can see the wire under his suit though. Screen-caps from television coverage of the debate are already popping up on the web.

One of the conditions for the debate specifically requested that the press not photograph him from behind. (Which they correctly ignored.)

LA to Reader:

You see something bulging from his back. Could be anything. Your definitively calling it a “wire,” which is only a way-out possibility, not something known, shows you’ve taken leave of fact.

As someone said to me, parodying this charge:

“Bush is a robot, radio-controlled by Jewish neocons in a bunker somewhere on the outskirts of Tel Aviv.”

Reader to LA:

Well, what I can see is a small cylindrical bulge leading up to his shoulder then. It does not look like a back brace, and I don’t know of Bush wearing one.

You seem to be operating along the theory that if Bush were to wear a wire it would have made him into a much better speaker. That theory does not hold water with me. I can only imagine a wire making Bush less conversational, as he tries to pay attention to someone speaking into his ear and speak at the same time. And there is no way to tell whether they would have fed him snippets from which he would have extemporized, or whether he would have gotten whole lines.

The wire theory is more probable than your theory. That you speak of me as “taking leave of fact” based on your extremely weak “speaking ability” case strikes me as strange.

LA to Reader:

Please don’t waste more of my time with this silliness.

Reader to LA:

By wire I meant the geometrical shape—not a listening device “wire” such as the FBI uses. When I referred to a receiver, all I said was “looks like.”

Your responses have have struck me as highly emotional and “silly.” I won’t bother trying to discuss this with you, I feel that it is my time that has been wasted.

LA to Reader:

Fine with me.

And so it went.

Once again, let us remember that in order to accept this theory, we would not only have to believe that the President of the United States took into the debate hall before an audience of tens of millions of people a high-tech electronic device attached to his back and an invisible earpiece into which was broadcast Karl Rove’s brilliantly crafted promptings (“It’s hard work,” “A leader can’t give mixed messages,” “We’re working hard,” “Mixed messages,” “Hard work”), but we would also have to believe that all this wild deception and rule-breaking by the president, aimed at making him seem more intelligent and articulate, resulted in the least intelligent and articulate performance in the history of presidential debates, despite the fact that in the second debate, where no one reports seeing any telltale bulge in Bush’s jacket, Bush gave his most verbally fluid performance ever. So, the president engaged in a fantastic deception, which if discovered would result in his disgrace and electoral defeat, and which achieved nothing but “hard work” and “mixed messages,” whereas (if we are to believe the conspiracy theorists), when the president eschewed such deceptions, he gave the best debate of his career.

What the conspiracy theorists offer us is a world turned inside out, where everything intuitively false is really true, and everything intuitively true is really false.

And that very perverseness is the secret appeal of believing in these conspiracy theories. It is the gnostic thrill of imagining that one has a purchase on the “real truth” of things—the truth that is hidden from the complacent, “highly emotional” dullards such as myself who accept the conventional lies fed to us by the powers that be.

Also, I’ve learned that the chief disseminator of the “ear piece” theory, to which my correspondent gives his uncritical credence, is one Dave Lindorff, a writer at Salon.com who has compared Bush to Hitler. And let’s not forget another motive besides pure Bush hatred. Kerry had been accused of taking something out of his jacket and placing it on his lectern just before the first debate, a gross breach of the rules. Given the way today’s Democrats operate, it’s entirely possible they are hyping the absurd idea that Bush was wired in order to distract attention from the suspicions against Kerry. In any case, the anti-war left (in this case, Lindorff) and the anti-war right (my correspondent) have come together like birds of a feather.

Finally, in response to this article, I received an interesting e-mail from a reader named Rocco (rocco@antiprotester.com):

I read your entry about the alleged Bush remote control and had to laugh.

For what it’s worth, my conclusion concerning conspiracy theorists is that they engage in these constructs to assuage the fearful truth: that the world is actually an incredibly chaotic, unpredictable place. This notion scares the hell out of them. On a personal note, I’ve had close contact with three people who were die-hard conspiracy theorists, you know the type: the entire planet is controlled by the Trilateral Commission, the Masons, the Jews, the Bilderbergers,etc, what we “see” is actually nothing but a shell game, blah blah blah.

What did these people have in common? After getting to know them on a personal level, I concluded that they suffered from psychological problems. Coincidence? Perhaps. But it makes sense to me that if life frightens you (as it did with these folks), the best way to get a grip on it is to package it up, nice and tightly and pretend that you understand it. These theories do just that.

I owned a sound and lighting company for eight years. I’ve got a working knowledge of electronics, digital and otherwise. What your email friend and other conspiracy freaks don’t seem to know is that any geek with $50 worth of Radio Shack parts can build a reliable wireless transmitter. And based on my knowledge, building a receiver small enough to conceal in the ear canal would be easily accomplished by modifying an off the shelf digital hearing aid. Bush is in control of far more sophisticated technology. Why the hell would he risk using clunky, Soviet-style garbage?

Just thought you’d like to know…

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 09, 2004 10:06 PM | Send