American Conspiracy Theories Illustrated Edition

In case the reader didn't notice the description, it's worth noting up front that Parent and Uscinski are both professors of political science at the University of Miami--the former an international relations specialist, the latter an Americanist with a particular focus on media and public opinion--so this is a social scientific study of conspiracy theories, not just a compendium of conspiracy-related anecdotes.The research question basically asks why people in the US believe conspiracy theories, with the key term defined as "an explanation of historical, ongoing, or future events that cites as a main causal factor a small group of powerful persons, the conspirators, acting in secret for their own benefit against the common good". Importantly, that does not label conspiracy theories as true or false--they can be either one. Some laborious data collection and analysis allows them to rule out a number of oft-cited factors as influencing the overall prevalence of conspiracy theories, including economic performance, the size of the government, social change, technological advancement, and political polarization (these all sound rather nebulous but are defined more precisely in the book and evaluated with specific measures typical to the research on those topics).In addition to their arguments against conventional wisdom, they have a few key findings of their own. The big one is that the data suggest that political ideology and partisanship are not good predictors of whether people will hold and express belief in conspiracy theories. As they put it in a recent post for The Monkey Cage, a blog at the Washington Post, "Conspiracy theories aren’t just for conservatives." They tie this to a broader argument about power distributions. When one party is in power, partisans on the opposite side are more likely to espouse conspiratorial beliefs.There's more to it, and it's well worth the quick read. Although the broader literature on conspiracy theories is not one with which I am terribly familiar and the conclusions are somewhat circumscribed by the available data, this is an interesting book that would seem to add some analytical rigor and theoretical parsimony to the study of conspiracy theories. Better yet, it's one of those rare academic works that is also highly readable.

Lacking an academic orientation to the subject, I was the perfect tabula rasa when I began reading American Conspiracy Theories, co-authored by Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent. However, I needed a popular culture frame of reference whenever I found myself overwhelmed by too many multivariate regressions and international power asymmetries.Fortunately, low-brow American entertainment had endowed us with Dale Gribble (King of the Hill), the perfect manifestation of the internet-age conspiracy theorist. Gribble, either the smartest-sounding dumb guy or the dumbest-sounding smart guy in the history of American animated sitcoms, had a bushel basket-full of conspiracy theories and shared them, unsolicited, with Hank Hill and the boys, as they guzzled beers while standing guard over the neighborhood trash cans.Initially, the analyzing of 121 years-worth of Letters to the Editor at the New York Times to gauge the long-term staying power of conspiracy theories, sounded like a perfectly legitimate and reliable method; upon further reading, three questions emerged. If, as Uscinski and Parent assert, “Conspiracy Theories are for Losers, ‘speaking descriptively, not pejoratively,’” why would Not-in-the-Mainstream conspiracy theorists share their views via The New York Times, viewed by librarians and historians as the Newspaper of Record, and arguably the most mainstream of US media? What percentage of letters received at the NYT, as opposed to letters printed, are conspiracy theory-based? And are the letters that make it to print an accurate ideological reflection of all conspiracy-based letters received?American Conspiracy Theories did not fully meet my expectations, but that is certainly not the fault of Uscinski and Parent. I remain extremely skeptical of all conspiracy theories, regardless of source or composition of the group peddling their various narratives.Mr. Gribble was unavailable for comment.

The authors make the mysterious and incomprehensible understandable. They challenge our deepest held beliefs and examine the conspiracy theories behind them. Whatever your political position, you will find yourself a bit unsettled as you read about the myths and conspiracy theories behind what you believe in your heart to be fact but maybe isn't at all. Definitely worth reading but keep an open mind. It's sometimes uncomfortable when you find yourself saying, "Hey, I BELIEVED that! "

Quite good! Especially useful in today's political climate. Suitable for a leisure read or for a higher-level course.

Facinating read! I am pleased to read that through the extensive research of Uscinski and Parent, that over 60% of Americans believe in one or more conspiracy theories. It tells me that as Americans, we have a healthy skepticism of our government and the "official" story lines of any given situation. Our Founding Fathers would be proud!

The book is interesting and provides some commentary on the conspiracy theory literature. However it casts a large net and fails to give us a better glimpse of the conspiracy theorist. Sure all Americans are prone to a little conspiracy from time to time, however there is a difference between those that may have heard about something like birtherism through mainstream media and may agree with it, and then there are those that believe in a shadow organization that controlled the whole thing

School book. Very informative

Required for a college class

Expensive

Love this book. Really interesting and quite original. I bought It for my thesis, and it turned out to be really useful and fascinating.

No problem.