A Lot of People Are Saying

1. The New Conspiracism: A Unique Threat to Democracy

Conspiracism today is dangerous because it strikes at the basic institutions of democracy.

Unanticipated threats. Democracy faces unprecedented fragility, with the "new conspiracism" emerging as a particularly insidious threat. Unlike traditional conspiracy theories, this new form directly attacks the foundational institutions of democratic governance, leading to widespread disorientation and a profound assault on shared reality. It has moved from the fringes of political life to its very heart, exemplified by its presence in the White House.

Delegitimating impulse. The core danger of the new conspiracism lies in its impulse to delegitimize democracy itself. It seeks not to correct perceived wrongs but to deny the standing of those it accuses, corroding the very foundations upon which democratic argument, persuasion, and decision-making rest. This process undermines the meaning, value, and authority of democratic practices and officials, making democracy seem unworkable and ultimately unworthy.

Presidential amplification. The phenomenon is uniquely amplified by presidential conspiracism, where accusations of "fake news," "rigged elections," and a "deep state" are deployed instinctively and frequently. This presidential endorsement normalizes conspiracist thinking, encouraging adherents across government and civil society to embrace and disseminate claims that were once confined to the margins. The result is a pervasive state of mind that endangers the entire political system.

2. Conspiracy Without Theory: Bare Assertion and Repetition

The new conspiracism dispenses with the burden of explanation.

Absence of explanation. Unlike classic conspiracy theories that engage in "detective work" to connect facts into a comprehensive narrative, the new conspiracism offers no punctilious demand for proofs or exhaustive amassing of evidence. Instead, it relies on bare assertion, innuendo, and ominous questions, such as "A lot of people are saying..." or a simple "Rigged!" This approach bypasses the need for logical coherence or factual substantiation, making it resistant to conventional refutation.

Validation by repetition. What validates these claims is not evidence but sheer repetition and social validation. Accusations are spread with astounding speed and reach through new broadcast technologies like social media, where retweets, reposts, and "likes" substitute for scientific or journalistic verification. The more people repeat a claim, the more credible it becomes in this new epistemological landscape, fostering a cycle of self-reinforcing falsehoods.

Pure negativity. This form of conspiracism is purely negative, shedding both explanation and political theory. It posits odious designs but rarely specifies the "how" or "why," or even the "who." It lacks a sense of history, scope, or scale, and offers no constructive political aim or vision for what should replace the reviled institutions. Its purpose is solely destructive: to destabilize, degrade, deconstruct, and ultimately delegitimize without offering any alternative.

3. "True Enough" and Tribal Assent: The Low Bar of Belief

If one cannot be certain that a belief is entirely false, with the emphasis on entirely, then it might be true—and that’s true enough.

Low epistemic bar. The new conspiracism operates on a low bar of assent: if a claim cannot be definitively proven "entirely false," then it is considered "true enough." This allows for the acceptance of propositions even when evidence is absent or contradictory, as long as the possibility of it being true exists. This "true enough" logic breathes life into conspiracist claims, corroding traditional standards of verification and validation.

Tribal basis of assent. Assent to these claims is often driven by tribal loyalty and identity rather than factual conviction. Conspiracist narratives resonate emotionally with existing affinities, connections, and hostilities, particularly partisan identities. Denying a conspiracist claim can be seen as disassociating from one's group, making public affirmation of these claims a powerful act of belonging and solidarity, regardless of personal belief.

Conspiracy entrepreneurs. This environment is exploited by "conspiracy entrepreneurs" who peddle accusations for money, celebrity, and influence. Figures like Alex Jones manufacture popular narratives, knowing that their audience will find them "true enough" to amplify and repeat. These entrepreneurs often concede individual claims are fabrications under pressure, but the overall production of new, equally baseless claims continues unabated, fueled by the demand for emotionally compelling narratives.

4. Presidential Conspiracism: Amplified Power and "Malignant Normality"

When conspiracism moves into the White House, it functions to divide the country against itself.

Uniquely destructive power. Presidential conspiracism, as embodied by Donald Trump, is uniquely potent due to the immense authority of the executive office. The president's capacity to shape the national agenda and confer recognition means that his conspiracist claims can divide the nation, turning one part of the populace against another. This ratifies scapegoating and normalizes conspiracism as a legitimate political tool.

Imposing reality. Trump's conspiracism stems from a personal drive to create and impose his own reality, often interpreting the world through a lens of victimization and grandiosity. His torrent of falsehoods, while not always "lies" in the traditional sense, are emphatic assertions he demands others affirm. As president, his compromised relationship with reality ascends from a private condition to a public one, compelling officials and citizens to accept or accommodate his version of events.

Malignant normality. This leads to "malignant normality," where critical institutions and officials are exploited and corrupted in service of conspiracist claims. The president accuses agencies of conspiracy while simultaneously commissioning them to affirm his charges, turning their ordinary business upside down. This process simultaneously denigrates and enlists democratic institutions, hollowing them out and making them appear illegitimate over time, even to those they are meant to serve.

5. Delegitimating Political Parties: Assault on Pluralism and Opposition

The alarming response today by those who reject the value of conflict and opposition is to delegitimate parties.

Foundational role of parties. Political parties are indispensable to representative democracy, organizing political conflict, selecting candidates, and translating societal pluralism into governmental action. They are the institutional expression and guarantors of political pluralism, allowing for legitimate opposition and the principle of "agreeing to disagree." Without them, democracy risks devolving into a radical populist form where a single "true" people stand behind a leader without intermediaries.

Three steps of delegitimation. The new conspiracism systematically delegitimizes parties through a three-step process:

• Delegitimating opposition candidates/leaders: Portraying them as criminals or unconstitutional (e.g., birtherism, "Lock her up!").
• Delegitimating the entire opposition party: Casting them as an existential threat to national identity or as treasonous collaborators with foreign powers.
• Impugning all political parties: Presenting both major parties as a colluding duopoly responsible for a rigged status quo, thereby undermining the entire system of representation.

Partisan penumbra. While ultimately anti-party, the new conspiracism currently aligns with radical conservatism, forming a "partisan penumbra." This alliance is fueled by a mutual hostility to active government and the administrative state. Conspiracism provides a means to delegitimize government programs and institutions that radical conservatives find difficult to dismantle directly due to public popularity, effectively expanding the market for conspiracist claims.

6. Assault on Knowledge: Undermining Facts, Expertise, and the Free Press

The new conspiracist mind-set blurs the line between misinformation and good information.

Politicizing facts. Conspiracism launches a sweeping assault on knowledge-producing institutions, including government agencies, universities, research centers, and the free press. It begins by rejecting simple, verifiable facts, as seen in the birther conspiracy, and culminates in denying the standing of institutions that produce information. This politicizes the very process by which facts are established, shrouding them in a conspiracist cloud and making objective reality contested.

Denigrating expertise. Expert knowledge, crucial for effective governance in the administrative state, is systematically denigrated. Claims like "climate change is a hoax" dismiss entire scientific consensuses not by refuting their methodology but by bare assertion, often attributing malicious intent to scientists themselves. This rejection of expertise extends beyond specific issues, undermining the authority of specialized knowledge across all domains, from public health to economic policy.

"Fake news" as conspiracy. The charge of "fake news" is more than an accusation of bias or error; it is a conspiracist claim that mainstream media outlets are secretly colluding to undermine political figures and their supporters. This rhetoric, amplified by figures like the president, aims to destroy the legitimacy of the press as an independent source of knowledge, portraying it as an "enemy of the people." This comprehensive attack on information sources leaves citizens without reliable guides for understanding the world.

7. The War on Common Sense: Disorientation and Epistemic Polarization

The new conspiracists claim to own real ity, and in doing so, they assault our common sense of real ity.

Renunciation of shared reality. The new conspiracism fosters profound disorientation by renouncing the shared realm of facts and experience, leaving individuals untethered to a common world. It is monologic, transmitting assertions without expecting verifiable evidence, and resistant to dialogue or refutation. This challenges the "fiduciary basis of knowledge," where trust in communities committed to public evidence is replaced by tribal loyalty to groups propagating private, unsharable knowledge.

Assault on common sense. Conspiracist claims frequently defy common sense—the widely shared perceptions, experiences, and moral judgments that form the bedrock of democratic public life. While appealing to "a lot of people are saying," this phrase actually signals exclusion, identifying a "cognoscenti" who "get it" and affirm a divergent sense of reality. This fractures the common political world, making meaningful argument, negotiation, or compromise impossible.

Epistemic polarization. This leads to a deep "epistemic polarization," where different groups inhabit fundamentally different realities. This schism is more corrosive than partisan polarization, affecting not just political values but basic perceptions of the world. It extends beyond the public sphere, infecting personal relationships and forcing individuals to question whether friends, family, or neighbors inhabit the same reality, threatening the very possibility of collective political action.

8. Speaking Truth to Conspiracy: The Imperative for Political Leaders

Speaking truth to conspiracy is a moral and po liti cal imperative, and it is a sign of dangerous times that so few responsible officeholders do.

Overcoming reticence. A primary obstacle to combating conspiracism is the widespread reticence of public officials to speak out against it. Leaders often placate, avoid questions, or remain silent, fearing electoral repercussions or primary challenges from constituents who believe conspiracist narratives. This complicity, as seen in the "Texas Takeover Conspiracy," allows baseless claims to spread from the periphery to the mainstream, lending them an aura of legitimacy.

The partisan connection. Political representatives have a unique responsibility and capacity to speak truth to conspiracy due to their "partisan connection" with voters. They are trusted by their constituents in a way that non-partisan civil servants, academics, or journalists may not be. This two-way connection requires them not only to transmit voters' views but also to educate them, correct misunderstandings, and refute unwarranted claims, even when it means risking political capital.

Moral mettle. Speaking truth demands moral mettle from officials, requiring them to step outside the "partisan penumbra" and challenge false claims, even when those claims attack the opposition party or are embraced by their own base. Examples like John McCain refuting a birther claim or Jeff Flake condemning complicity highlight the importance of principled resistance. Such actions, though often isolated, are crucial for upholding democratic principles and preventing the further degradation of public discourse.

9. Enacting Democracy: Relegitimating Institutions Through Process and Pedagogy

Reversing the damage done to the meaning, value, and authority of demo cratic institutions is its own challenge.

Beyond refutation. While speaking truth is essential for containing conspiracism, it is insufficient for reversing the deep damage of delegitimation. Relegitimating democratic institutions requires "enacting democracy"—a strenuous and explicit adherence to the regular processes and forms of public decision-making, coupled with a pedagogical explanation of their value. This involves demonstrating and avowing commitment to fair processes, making government legible to citizens.

Exhibiting institutional integrity. Enacting democracy means officials actively draw attention to how legislative, prosecutorial, regulatory, or investigative processes adhere to established norms. Examples include state officials refusing to cooperate with a spurious "voter fraud commission" or a US attorney meticulously explaining due process in a high-profile case, even when facing presidential pressure. These actions, though often subtle, serve as public exhibitions of institutional integrity.

Making power legible. This pedagogical approach helps demystify governmental power and makes politics legible, allowing citizens to understand the clash of interests, the impact of decisions, and the accountability mechanisms at play. By upholding regular processes and explaining their purpose, officials can counteract the conspiracist tendency to obscure power relations and delegitimize institutions. This commitment to transparency and process is vital for rebuilding trust and ensuring that citizens continue to recognize and value their democratic government.

Last updated: January 2, 2026