I wonder if the results would change if the poll question was posed differently.
"The world is controlled by a secretive elite" seems loaded to me. I would struggle with the word 'secretive'.
There are better ways to frame the question.
unherd.com
"The world is controlled by a secretive elite" seems loaded to me. I would struggle with the word 'secretive'.
There are better ways to frame the question.
unherd.com
1. "Too many political decisions are made by undemocratic technocratic bodies."
2. "Political parties do not give the voter any meaningful choice to influence the policy agenda."
3. "Mainstream news media fails to convey the true character of the contemporary political order."
2. "Political parties do not give the voter any meaningful choice to influence the policy agenda."
3. "Mainstream news media fails to convey the true character of the contemporary political order."
4. "Politics is dominated by special interest lobbying, fake civil society organisations and politically-motivated technocrats and low-rent academics."
5. "Politicians prefer deferring to global institutions than representing the wishes of the public and their constituents."
5. "Politicians prefer deferring to global institutions than representing the wishes of the public and their constituents."
6. "Atrophied political parties are self-serving and have converged at a superficially centrist but radical consensus, and have lost contact with the public and political constituencies, and have no ideas about how to confront the democratic deficit and crisis of legitimacy."
7. "Tony Blair initiated the darkest chapter of Britain's political history by dismantling democracy and long-standing political principles because he 'thought it was the right thing to do', the full consequences of which are yet to be understood."
I could probably go on.
But it's easy to frame quite reasonable criticisms of contemporary politics as 'conspiracy theory'. All criticisms of politics are, in one way or another superficially analogous to a conspiracy theory.
But it's easy to frame quite reasonable criticisms of contemporary politics as 'conspiracy theory'. All criticisms of politics are, in one way or another superficially analogous to a conspiracy theory.
One relatively influential academic in the field -- a psychologist -- believes that even criticising academics from a position outside of the campus is in and of itself to hold with a 'conspiracy theory'.
Just to accuse some expert of being wrong is 'conspiracy ideation'.
Just to accuse some expert of being wrong is 'conspiracy ideation'.
"Conspiracy theory" is a just a smear. People's ability to express political ideas varies. But I'm quite comfortable with the statement, "you can stick your eco-doomer, weirdo gender and fake racial grievance ideologies up your arse; this is about money", even if it's simplistic.
I'm not afraid of 'conspiracy theorists', the 'far right', or 'populism', because I believe that by far the majority of people just want to be left alone to get on with their families and work, not to be troubled by ideologies and idiot politicians' grands projets.
People who tend to be concerned about 'conspiracy theories' tend to have radical ideas about how society must be reorganised, in short order, and about how people who object to that transformation must be dealt with. They tend to be extremists, IOW.
Loading suggestions...