Jonah Goldberg: Epstein’s death reflects new age of conspiracy theories |
Featured Commentary

Jonah Goldberg: Epstein’s death reflects new age of conspiracy theories

Jonah Goldberg
In this July 30, 2008 file photo, Jeffrey Epstein appears in court in West Palm Beach, Fla.

Anyone who’s watched a courtroom TV drama has heard the phrase “Hard cases make bad law.” It’s a legal maxim that says really extreme — i.e., rare or weird — cases are not only hard to generalize from, they’re also a bad foundation for new legislation or policy.

This also happens to be a good rule of thumb in life. Imagine if you judged all people of a certain race, sex or occupation based upon the strangest anecdote you have about someone who fits a particular category. Not every male in the Sunshine State is like “Florida Man.”

Which brings us to another Florida Man, Jeffrey Epstein, the admitted sex offender and high-society billionaire who apparently committed suicide in federal detention, despite having earlier been on suicide watch.

Epstein used his money and connections to get a sweetheart deal in Florida to evade serious punishment for soliciting prostitution from underage girls. A decade later, after the nature of the deal was exposed, a federal prosecutor in New York decided to prosecute him there.

In response to the news of Epstein’s death, conspiracy theories exploded across social media. The hashtags “TrumpBodyCount” and “ClintonBodyCount” trended nationally, the former in no small part because President Trump himself retweeted the Clinton body count hashtag.

And while it was deeply irresponsible of the president to do that (and for Republicans to defend it), it’s hard to blame everyone else because, damn, this is a weird story. Even Attorney General William Barr was flabbergasted by the news. “Mr. Epstein’s death raises serious questions that must be answered,” Barr said in a statement announcing an investigation.

America has always had a bipartisan taste for conspiracy theories, because humans are wired to selectively connect dots that fit a preconceived narrative. Every society has its own pet notions of secret cabals and mysterious plots. If anything, the United States is less prone to such things because conspiracy theories thrive in undemocratic cultures where rulers are unaccountable and probably are scheming behind the scenes. The rule of law, elections and a robust free press are great antidotes to such thinking.

That’s why, in the U.S., conspiracy theories have historically thrived among groups that feel locked out, whether it’s Jim Crow-era African-Americans or 19th century white farmers during the Know-Nothing era who believed the “Pope in Rome” was plotting against them.

What makes this moment so different — and dangerous — is that elites who presumably know better, or should know better, have become increasingly paranoid as well.

It’s normal for the party out of power to dabble in conspiratorial thinking. Partisanship and perceived powerlessness fuel the desire to see your opponents in the worst light.

But the trend has metastasized recently. No doubt there are many causes. Cratering faith in institutions, especially the media, is kindling for the fires of paranoia. Social media prioritizes the sensational over the factual and give outsized voice to those who claim to know what’s “really” going on. The growth of bureaucratic and unaccountable government and the rent-seeking of the financially powerful — at home and internationally — have turned “globalists” into the malefactors of 21st century know-nothingism.

Then there’s Trump. He rose to political prominence on the back of a conspiracy theory and exploited several others to rally his troops. His detractors resort to other conspiracy theories (mass voter suppression, Russia, etc.) to explain his 2016 Electoral College victory, and he invokes one (millions of illegal voters) to explain his failure to win the popular vote. Trump’s coalition is a big tent where people with tinfoil hats get to belly up to the Kool-Aid punch bowl, proudly wearing their QAnon, Pizzagate, anti-Deep State name tags.

That’s what’s so awful about the Epstein story, however the facts pan out. It lends validation — perhaps not factual, but certainly psychological — to the craziest voices and will make it harder, for years to come, to argue against the new paranoia.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.