Re: more conspiracy

At 05:37 PM 8/1/00 +0800, you wrote:

>How about the World Business Forum as a contender for the list ?
>
>
>At 02:21 PM 07/31/2000 -0700, you wrote:
>>Another "conspiracy in plain view" is the Council on Foreign Relations:
>>
>>http://www.cfr.org/p/
>>
>
>
>
>


Perhaps you mean World Economic Forum, a not-for-profit foundation at
Davos, Switzerland?

Umm--and perhaps it would be nice to think about this notion of "conspiracy
in plain sight."  If something is in "plain sight" (i.e., if it has an
easily available Web site publishing its policy discussions and
recommendations) its status as a "conspiracy" is by definition problematic
(a "conspiracy" is by definition clandestine--something that hardly
characterizes the World Economic Forum, whose annual meeting is published
every year in the mainstream media and whose Web site I just found without
knowledge of its URL by simply entering "worldeconomicforum.org" into my
browser window).  

Its status as a "conspiracy" cannot be determined by the nature of its
membership.  Participation in the World Economic Forum is, if anything,
only slightly more exclusive and unrepresentative than participation in
ICFTU or the AFL-CIO.  Let's be honest, folks, union people aren't typical
working people anywhere in the world, leftist mythology notwithstanding.
Nevertheless, I rather doubt that most of the people on this list would
call the latter two organizations "conspiracies".  

Nor can secrecy by itself define an organization as a "conspiracy."  By
this criterion, any organization that ever has any body that meets
privately to discuss, e.g., lobbying efforts to be conducted in public, is
a "conspiracy."  It is true that the World Economic Forum Web site has an
inaccessible "members only" area, but so does the ICFTU site (note the task
bar at the bottom of the home page at http://www.icftu.org.  The word
"login" appears.  If you click on this word, you will be asked for a
password.  I can't immediately tell from the site map which areas of the
site require a password).

I would be much happier reserving the word "conspiracy" for organizations
that had some or both of the following characteristics:  (1) their
existence or membership or both are not known to the public; (2) their
primary goals (not necessarily their political strategy) are at least
partially not discussed publicly, although they may advance a "public
agenda."  In short, they have a "hidden agenda."  

All this, of course, does not prevent anyone from claiming that an
inequality of power exists between the membership of the Trilateral
Commission, the World Economic Forum, CFR, and other pro-business groups
and groups representing other social forces.  Nor does it prevent anyone
from attacking the goals of these organizations.  What it does do is
caution against concepts like "conspiracy in plain sight".  I am sorry to
say that the concept smells to me less of social scientific analysis than
of "doublespeak" aimed at securing the rhetorical advantage of a loaded
word like "conspiracy" in political debates. 

As I expect this may stir up a hornet's nest, let me express my apologies
for any seeming harshness; I bear those who have used this phrase no ill
will.  Nor do I have any interest in an extended debate on this subject.  I
simply wish to caution the left against the danger of worrying more about
political rhetoric than about sound social scientific analysis, a value I
assume most of us on this list share.  
  
--
Jeffrey L. Beatty
Doctoral Student
Department of Political Science
The Ohio State University
2140 Derby Hall
154 North Oval Mall
Columbus, Ohio 43210

(o) 614/292-2880
(h) 614/688-0567

Email:  Beatty.4@osu.edu
______________________________________________________   
If you fear making anyone mad, then you ultimately probe for the lowest
common denominator of human achievement-- President Jimmy Carter