Tonight (Sunday) marks the beginning of the dark period in the Jewish calendar known as “The Nine Days” – a time of intense mourning for the fallen Temples in Jerusalem. The first Temple (built by King Solomon) was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 B.C., the second Temple was demolished and burned by the Romans in 70 AD. Both structures were destroyed on the same day – the ninth day of the month of Av in the Jewish calendar – which occurs this year on Monday night/Tuesday, July 23^rd-24^th.

I’ll be observing the Ninth of Av at the very spot that witnessed the double-destruction we commemorate –the Temple Mount in Jerusalem – as part of the Israel tour we’ve arranged with some 200 listeners from across the United States. In preparing for this occasion, I came across an extraordinary passage from one of the great Jewish minds of the nineteenth century who writes about the Messianic yearning that’s always part of the observance of these summer days of sorrow. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) led a religious revival of German Jewry against the forces of secularism and modernism—insisting on the authenticity of tradition and text, as the well as the importance of the people’s ongoing relationship to God. The words below—written for his monthly newspaper, Jeschurun, in 1855 – speak to the universal yearning for the Messiah (Christians would say for the Messiah’s return) and miraculously anticipate the rebuilding of Israel and Jerusalem:

The persecuted, despised, misrepresented Jewish people is not the most unfortunate on earth, the one most in need of deliverance on earth. The whole earth is thirsting for deliverance. Sorrow and misery in hovels and palaces, in cities and states awaken a yearning and hope for the Messiah in every human breast. It is not the Jewish salvation alone which depends on the resurrection of Zion…

Once before the world has thirsted for deliverance: it was the time when Zion fell. The heathen world was falling into decay. The gods heard their death-knell, sadness dwelt in the hearts of men. Innocence and human worth were laughed at; bestial indulgence and shameless lust took the prize, folly and weakness ascended the throne. Tyrants and slaves enjoyed themselves on earth—but men groaned and starved. Humanity had lost its divinity, men sighed for a new God.

But before Zion fell, a spark from Zion’s holy lamp had been carried forth by feeble hands into the despairing heathen world. And even this single isolated Jewish spark seemed to those who bore it almost too radiant for the heathen world. They forgot to trust in the power of the Divine; they forgot it did not need human assistance, that it knew the time would come when human minds would rise to the perception of its faint glimmer. They had compassion on their doomed fellow-men, they could not endure the sorrow of the breaking hearts. In pity they shaded the bright light of the Jewish spark and lowered it to a flicker suited to the heathen breast….

The spark fights and conquers. The veils fall off, the supports break; a new agony convulses the world. They see the lesson, they feel it and learn it. It is not faith, even the purest, that can consummate the deliverance of the world. The deliverance of the world lives in law. Faith can illumine the mind and comfort the heart. But to wed upon earth justice with love, sanctity with joy, life with peace, to bring Palestine back to earth and make men blessed already here below, this can be accomplished fully only by law.

One day men will yearn for this law, and then to fulfill this yearning they will turn to Zion. Then, then—

 “The mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills, and the people shall flow into it. And many nations shall go and say, Come ye and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of God of Jacob; and He will teach of His ways and we will walk in His paths. For out of Zion shall go forth the law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge between many peoples and shall decide concerning mighty nations afar off, and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lif up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But they shall sit every many under his vine and under his fig-tree and none shall make them afraid, for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken.” (Micah 4.1-4)

Anyone who reads major newspapers or watches TV news would naturally assume that on Thursday, July 2^nd, the House of Representatives took a fateful vote to end the Iraq War and to withdraw US troops.

As a matter of fact, the House voted for nothing of the kind, and the public distortions by both parties and all major media demonstrate the shameful gamesmanship on all sides  when it comes to Iraq policy.

USA TODAY, the nation’s top circulation newspaper, featured a front page headline that declared “House Votes for Pullout by April” – conveying the impression that the Democrats succeeded, in a party line  223-201 vote, in demanding that all American forces come home by next spring. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer gave its readers a similar impression, with its front page headline: “HOUSE DEFIES BUSH, OKs EXIT.” Even the New York Times covered the story under the grossly inaccurate summary: A FIRM BUSH TELLS CONGRES NOT TO DICTATE POLICY ON WAR: House Responds by Voting to Withdraw Combat Troops From Iraq by April 1^st.”

Reading the articles that accompanied these headlines, they made almost no reference to the actual text of the resolution the House had just approved. The stories—like reports on television – suggested that the edgy debate had been all about “bringing the troops home,” “withdrawal from Iraq,” and “bringing this tragic war, finally, to an end.”

In truth, the House didn’t approve withdrawal, a deadline for US troops to come home, or in any sense mandate an end to the war. The resolution they considered (H.R. 2956) actually bore the heading “Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.”  (Italics added). The official summary of this legislation described “An Act to require the Secretary of Defense to commence the reduction of the number of United States Armed Forces in Iraq to a limited presence by April 1, 2008, and for other purposes.” (Italics added).

In other words, the House voted for troop reduction, not troop withdrawal.

But even so savvy a Washington insider as Dick Morris, Fox News contributor and former political consultant to President Clinton, didn’t know what the resolution actually said. When he talked with me on my radio show on Friday and I read him the actual text of the House resolution, he seemed genuinely shocked by its contents.

The operative language in the bill orders the Secretary of Defense to “commence the reduction of the number of Armed Forces in Iraq beginning not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act and shall complete the reduction and transition to a limited presence of the Armed Forces in Iraq by not later than April 1, 2008.”

The resolution says nothing about how large the reduction should be, or makes the slightest attempt to define what is meant by the “limited presence” expected for the long term in Iraq..

In fact, Section 4, subsection 2, calls on the President to provide “a justification of the minimum force levels required to protect United States national security interests in Iraq after April 1, 2008” – a statement which unmistakably anticipates a continued presence in the country (of unspecified scope and dimension) after the purported deadline for “withdrawal.”

Contrary to the New York Times headline and support, the resolution never mentions the withdrawal of “Combat Troops from Iraq by April 1.In fact, the resolution explicitly anticipates that US forces will indefinitely involve themselves in “engaging in actions to disrupt and eliminate al-Qaeda and its affiliated organizations in Iraq.” If this isn’t combat, what is it? The same passage (Section 4, Subsection 3) also acknowledges that our soldiers will stay in country for the sake of “protecting United States diplomatic facilities and United States citizens” and “training and equipping members of the Iraq Security Forces.”

Even Democratic military and foreign policy experts agree that accomplishing these purposes will require a substantial U.S. force. Dick Morris said that his sources in the Clinton campaign suggest that it’s realistic to expect the long-term presence in Iraq of at least 75,000 U.S. troops – about half our current contingent.

In other words, when Democrats talk about “ending the war” or “bringing the boys back home” they are lying in order to mollify their activist, anti-war base. The resolution that the party’s leadership crafted provides for a semi-permanent Iraq presence, not a quick end to the war. The Cindy Sheehan/Michael Moore “Peace” wing of the party would feel furious and betrayed if the media told them the truth about what the “anti-war resolution” actually contained.

Meanwhile, the GOP hasn’t pointed out the Democratic distortions because they hope to associate their opponents with the irresponsible position of “immediate withdrawal” and “abject surrender.” The Democrats won’t talk about how moderate and cautious their resolution really is because they don’t want to upset or disappoint their impatient, “impeach Bush” supporters. The Republicans won’t tell the truth because they don’t want to show that their rivals have actually suggested an alternate in strategy, not an end to the ongoing US commitment or the abrupt abandonment of our Iraqi allies.

At the same time, the press failed to do its job because the public seems to relish a bitter grudge match between advocates of “bring ‘em home” and defenders of “stay the course.” The real debate concerns redeployment, not withdrawal; a shift in strategy, not a total reorientation in policy. In other words, the fight on Capitol Hill hardly qualifies as the desperate, fateful clash-of-worldviews battle that major media love to describe in such breathless (and dishonest) tones.

The GOP still possesses the trump-card argument: that when it comes to these adjustments involving our mission in Iraq, the nation should place more trust in General Petraeus than in General Pelosi (or General Reid, for that matter).

President Bush has displayed admirable courage and clarity in defending this essential principle of giving military control to the military leadership, not to hack politicians of either party addicted to pandering and grandstanding.

It will only strengthen his case – and further highlight Democratic hypocrisy – if he highlights the true content of the meaningless and timid House Resolution, rather than going along with the political and media charade suggesting that we’re actually debating an end to a necessary war.

If you’re challenged, disturbed or, by any chance, persuaded by the anti-religious diatribes of Christopher Hitchens, then consider turning to Ludwig van Beethoven for the best available answer.

Instead of confronting the specific arguments in the Hitchens bestseller “god is not Great,” or listing its various flaws of fact or logic, settle back in front of whatever sound system you possess and spend a bit more than an hour listening to one of the great masterpieces of western civilization (especially in a new CD version that will cost you less than eight bucks – but more on that later).

Beethoven wrote the Missa Solemnis (or “Solemn Mass”) in 1823 at a point in his life when his progressive hearing loss left him almost totally deaf. Four years before his death, the great composer labored mightily on his stirring, audacious, occasionally heart-breaking treatment for chorus and orchestra of the traditional Catholic liturgy. The very heart of the piece features a gigantic, complex, profoundly inspiring setting of the “Credo,” featuring Latin words declaring: “I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father, before all ages; God of God, light of light, true God of true God…”

Would Hitchens suggest that Beethoven, already world famous, beloved and adored by the music-loving public (some 20,000 ultimately attended his funeral), only wrote this piece to curry favor or attract an audience?

Hitchens insists that Jerry Falwell never sincerely believed in the silly religious messages he preached. Would he make the same charge against Beethoven, one of the greatest artistic geniuses in all of human history?

If so, how would he explain an even later work by The Master: one of his final and most intimate statements before his death, the great String Quartet in A minor Opus 132. The third movement of that soul-baring chamber work, and the clear spiritual center of the piece, bears the title (in Beethoven’s own handwriting): “Holy Song of Thanksgiving to the Godhead from One Who Has Recovered” (in the original German, “Heiliger Dankgesang eines Gesenen an die Gottheit”)

The point in all of this is that Beethoven’s unmistakably heartfelt religiosity gives the lie to Hitchens’ assumption that Judeo-Christian faith can engage only those who count as stupid, unsophisticated, crude, dishonest, weak, manipulative, illogical or barbaric.

I don’t deny that Hitchens possesses a brilliant mind and singular eloquence (a gift from God, I would say) but it’s safe to conclude that people will still be listening to the Missa Solemnis, and feel inspired by its majesty, for centuries after the collected works of Christopher Hitchens have moldered into dust and obscurity.

Hitchens argues that “religion poisons everything” – but it hardly poisoned the work of Beethoven, or Bach, or Haydn, or Brahms, or Bruckner, or Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky or Michelangelo or T.S. Eliot, or countless other immortal creators who shaped music or poetry or paintings or novels with the conscious intention of glorifying God.

For those who don’t know the Missa Solemnis, a gorgeously performed and gloriously well-recorded new version recently appeared on the budget-priced Arte Nova-Classics label. The CD contains the masterpiece in its entirety (some 66 minutes of startlingly beautiful music) and can be purchased at major chain stores (or through the internet) for $5.99 or $6.99. The performance by the great Tonhalle Orchestra of Zurich, with the Scweizer Kammerchor (the Swiss Chamber Choir) under the direction of the American conductor David Zinman, features striking commitment, stunning emotional depth, and the vivid, detailed, resonant acoustics of the historic concert hall where they performed the piece in 2001. For the impatient, go directly to the ecstatic and explosive “Gloria” (the second movement) or the huge, lovely “Credo” (the third movement, previously mentioned). The catalogue number for this outstanding rendition of a celebrated masterpiece is Arte-Nova Classics, ANO 870740.

The great composer Felix Mendelssohn once declared: “Music communicates thoughts that are not too indefinite for words, but thoughts that are too definite.”  

In this context, the Missa Solemnis communicates the indelible and unmistakable thought that God exists, and shows His love for His children by reaching us through music.

Americans appear to be badly confused about the recent progress of the economy. A clear majority – some 60% according to the most recent Gallup Poll – believes “the nation’s economy is worse than five years ago” but barely half as many say their “personal financial situation” is worse. Obviously, people do a better job judging their own status than they do evaluating the of the current state of the nation – and the 67% who reported their situation as “better” or “no change” give a more accurate picture of what's going on. Since this time in 2002 – five years ago—unemployment has gone down sharply – from 5.8% to 4.5% -- while the Dow Jones average soared from below 9,000 to well above 13,000. Amazingly, among American adults who are employed full time, less than 3% fall below the poverty level. In other words, those who get and hold jobs – even menial, entry level jobs – need never be poor. Instead of accepting negative messages from mainstream media obsessed with alarming news, Americans ought to consider their own good fortune and face the future with optimism and gratitude.

  I have a question for those dedicated Democrats who, despite their disagreements with me, nonetheless read this blog or listen to my radio show.

It’s easy to make fun of the Live Earth concerts – with all these pampered, puerile performers consuming prodigious amounts of energy in order to pontificate about the desperate need for “little people” to do their bit to conquer Global Warming. The Al Gore inspired inanity that played out in every corner of the globe seemed to concentrate on the message that the billions (literally) who watched these events on the tube couldn’t do anything on their own, but needed to wait for government to change policies in order to make a real difference. In other words, Live Earth managed to re-cycle one thing, at least – the old liberal mistake that says that citizens can’t do anything to help themselves (or their country, or their world) and their only hope involves changing government. In other words, to liberals (like all the well-intentioned bozos who participated in Live Earth) change only matters when it’s government initiated and government mandated. In truth, bottom-up changes in private, individual behavior (which are eminently possible on this issue) brings far greater impact than any top-down bureaucratic demand.

Conservatives may provide such obvious responses to the seven-continent-concerts, but in the long run it won’t stop the left from making Global Warming and energy conservation into major political issues in the Presidential Election of 2008. There’s no doubt that “Saving the Planet” will constitute one of the three big imperatives that Democrats will emphasize endlessly between now and Election Day – the others being “Ending the Iraq War” and providing “Health Insurance for All.”

Republicans may snicker at the left’s political posturing but this triad gives the Dems a huge advantage in the forth-coming race. They promise – no matter how implausibly – three big changes that will impact the lives of every American.

And Republicans are promising….what, exactly?

So far, our only response to the Democratic promises on Peace, Health Care and the Environment is that liberal solutions don’t work and tend to make situations worse than before. These arguments need to be made, and the public should be appropriately frightened by the huge increase in the size and cost of government implicit in liberal plans. But these warnings hardly constitute the sort of positive program or soaring vision that can energy a cynical and dispirited electorate.

In a sense, the two natural issues for Republicans – fighting terrorism and protecting economic growth – have been taken off the table by the remarkably successful administration of George W. Bush (regardless of his low approval ratings). The President has done such an outstanding job of keeping the nation safe from major attack, and keeping the economy chugging reliably forward, that most Americans take this success for granted. They assume that prosperity and domestic security represent some natural state of affairs, and Republican candidates will score few points by promising to continue these good times.

Instead, Republicans must counter the grand schemes of the Democrats with some thrilling visions of our own. The obvious possibilities involve saving Social Security (everyone knows it’s broken), radical tax simplification (Fair Tax, anyone?) or a guarantee of free choice in education for every American. Dramatic legal reform might also generate energy and enthusiasm – with pledges to reduce he crushing cost and profound drag on the economy of nuisance lawsuits.

And what about an across-the-board reduction in federal spending and a shrinking of the size of government? If Republicans make an aggressive pledge to slash the bureaucracy, including written commitments from both the Presidential and Congressional candidates, it will be up to the Democrats to defend absurd programs like the Teapot Museum or the millions for “mood altering lamps” at the Centers for Disease Control. The Republicans could—and should – publicize some new outrageous example of asinine federal spending every one of the hundred days between their convention and the election. Maybe they should begin right now – there are certainly enough wasteful examples to go around.

So far, our candidates have done a miserable job of seizing control of the national debate and the campaign’s agenda. If they don’t start talking about major changes that might actually electrify elements of the public then we’ll spend the entire campaign talking about “Health Insurance for All” and “Energy Conservation to Save Drowning Polar Bears” and, of course, “Bringing the Boys Home from Iraq” (which no Democrat and no Republican will actually be able to do… but that’s another story).

In other words, if we continue our internal bickering and allow the other side to determine the terms of the debate, Republicans will lose – and we may lose very badly.

All eight Democratic Presidential candidates denounced the recent Supreme Court decision saying school boards in Seattle and Louisville couldn’t rely so heavily on race in making student assignments.

In his decision, Chief Justice Roberts’ wrote: “The only way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating based on race.” This reasoning sounds so clear and logical that most Americans instinctively agree with it, but the Dems ignore common sense when pandering to their activist base.

The famous 1954 Brown decision was about allowing black kids to go to schools they wanted to attend, but the Democrats endorse the idea of school boards forcing white kids into schools they want to avoid. Using government to enforce racial separation was wrong, but it’s also wrong for government to enforce artificial “diversity”—regardless of housing patterns or freedom of choice. Both wrongs rely on the disgusting practice of delivering different official treatment based solely on skin color.

The latest example of political correctness run amok involves the BBC describing the Islamists who planned bombings in London and Glasgow as arising from “the disfranchised South Asian community.”

First, it’s ridiculous to describe successful physicians as disfranchised. Second, the reference to “South Asian community” is misleading, like the description of one of the plotters as “Indian.” The refusal to use the words “Muslim” or “Islamist” to identify these terrorists –echoed by the official policy of the new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown –suggests that the would-be bombers might be Hindu—since Hinduism is the primary religion of South Asia, and certainly of India.

But of course, they’re all Muslim, and at least two are from the Middle East, not Pakistan. The press identifies the ringleader, Mohammed Asha, as Palestinian, even though he spent his life in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Britain—another distortion from media outlets that often ignore or deny the truth about terrorism and about Islam.

Americans traditionally mix nationalism and religion on the Fourth of July – embracing the idea that God chose this favored land for a special fate and special responsibilities.

To left-leaning secularists, this blend of religion and patriotism seems questionable, even dangerous – violating the allegedly sacred “separation of church and state.”

In fact, the association of religiosity and nationalism began with the Founders; the notion of a strict “wall of separation” did not.

Consider the words of John Adams in a letter to his wife Abigail in 1775: “Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. A patriot must be a religious man.”

Or note the observation of his worldy-wise colleague, Benjamin Franklin: “And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable than an empire can rise without His aid?”

May the American empire – a Republic of goodness, kindness and righteousness– continue to rise, and continue to merit His aid.

 Happy Independence Day!

Some conspiracy theorists insist that there’s nothing new or novel or dangerous in pointing to the hidden hand behind perplexing, painful present events. They argue that discerning observers and historians have always identified powerful conspiracies because these plots and schemes have played such a prominent role in human events.

Consider the assassination of Julius Caesar on the Ides of March. Wasn’t that high-minded plot an example of a diabolical and world-changing conspiracy? And what about the Nazis or the Bolsheviks or even the Sons of Liberty in the American Revolution? Didn’t such groups prepare secretive plans which they ultimately executed in the course of seizing power?

The difference between actual conspiracies like these and paranoid delusions about ongoing World Domination by various secret societies or hidden cabals involves the public display of power. After Cassius and Brutus led their cohorts in stabbing Caesar to death, they proudly and publicly claimed credit for their actions and seized control of Rome. Hitler and Lenin both wrote prolifically about their revolutionary plans—and publicly announced their intentions to anyone who cared to listen. The Sons of Liberty favored public displays – like the Boston Tea Party, or attacking tax collectors, or erecting “Liberty Poles” – as a means of rallying the people to their cause.

In any conspiracy – or confederation – some of the participants will claim credit and trumpet their success if they achieve, or else they will blame some of their colleagues if they fail.

Throughout human history, and particularly in this media-riddled age, the very essence of power is public influence or authority. The definition of a powerful ruler (or conspirator) involves the ability to force multitudes to bend to your will, to follow your orders. That ability remains meaningless or non-existent if your will and your orders and your plans remain a well-kept secret.

The last generation has witnessed a worrisome explosion of theories and nightmares suggesting that such invisible schemes play a deeply concealed role in shaping current events.

Two paranoid but popular obsessions provide evidence of the recent rise of brain-addled conspiracist thinking. After the world learned the shocking truth about Hitler’s Holocaust in the late 1940’s, no one – not even Nazi war-criminals themselves – attempted to deny the extraordinarily well-documented murder of millions of Jewish civilians. Thirty years later, however, with the spread of media culture , “Holocaust Denial” began to gain ground, openly encouraged (and funded) by anti-Israel Islamic dictators and potentates.

Even more recently, the JFK assassination horrified the nation but produced few skeptics concerning the wealth of evidence that Oswald represented a lone nut (like previous assassins of Presidents Garfield and McKinley, and would-be assassins who fired on Presidents FDR, Truman, Ford and Reagan), not an agent of some massive conspiracy. The Warren Commission provided a definitive account of the killing, and raised few questions until various charlatans and opportunists began to attack its findings nearly two decades after the events. Again, some odd feature of the late ‘70’s zeitgeist led to an obsessive pursuit (utterly discredited by Vincent Bugliosi’s magisterial new book “Reclaiming History”) of various lunatic speculations about Umbrella Men, and Grassy Knolls, and Magic Bullets.

Why the increasing desire to find conspirators behind every big event (including the death of Princess Diana, the Moon Landing in 1969, the Y2K Computer Bug,  the September 11^th attacks) and under every bed?

Two important factors in contemporary life help to feed the current conspiratorial mania: first, a lust for privileged “insider” status and information, and second, the decline of a religious view of history.

Countless commentators on the modernity and its misfortunes note the sense of disconnection and insecurity that come with our fast-moving, urbanized society and media-saturated culture. Many (if not most) Americans slight the old ties of neighborhood and extended family and devote a disproportionate amount of their time to communing with phantoms on TV, with video games, DVD’s and, of course, on the internet. The literally hundreds of millions of personal websites and blogs posted every day reflect a desperate desire to connect, to win attention, to achieve some status as noteworthy and special rather than resigning oneself to anonymous status as just another cog in the post-industrial machine.

In this context, anyone can qualify as a conspiracy “researcher,” or an important and uniquely well-informed specialist in some arcane speculation about numerology or cults or hidden cabals of world-shakers. Conspiracism provides the ultimate sense of privileged, “insider” information. According to those who traffic in these secret plans, only dupes, or fools, or ordinary “sheep-ple” would prove so naïve as to accept the “official” version of events (“Some nineteen Arabs with box-cutters could knock down the tallest buildings on earth? Only a gullible dolt, or a willing tool of the power structure, could believe such nonsense!”).

Whether the conspiracist is “blowing the whistle” about the New World Order of AIDS as a CIA Plot, or the Monster Superhighway through Texas, his special “knowledge” makes him, in turn, feel special.

The second factor fueling conspiracy theories involves the rise of secularism and atheism in the United States and, to a much greater extent, in Europe. Human beings feel a deep and perpetual desire to find some deeper meaning in the dramatic events around them. Religious believers can examine those developments and begin to discern God’s will. Those without strong faith, however, may feel the need to explain these alarms and disasters with reference to diabolical human agents determined to play god. Either way, the observer gets the satisfaction of seeing some larger purpose behind puzzling occurrences. With the JFK assassination, for instance, there’s no satisfaction whatever to the idea of the charismatic leader of the Free World felled at age 46 by a crazed, laughably pathetic loser who’d never achieved any success or impact of any kind before his lucky shot in 1963. The notion that JFK’s death meant something more, that he died as a martyr to some higher cause, provokes a deep-seated, instinctive preference for believing in some grand, all-powerful conspiracy that at least seems worthy of its target.

If spectators to history can’t pronounce the words “Thy Will Be Done” without having them stick in the throat, at least the formulation “The Conspiracy’s Will Be Done” provides more satisfaction than an assumption of randomness.

G.K. Chesterton once observed: “The problem with those who reject God is not that they believe in nothing. It is that they believe in everything.”

And believing in even the most outlandish conspiracies (much in evidence earlier Monday during full-moon “Conspiracy Day” on my radio show) at least involves some examination of the deeper meaning and long-term direction of recent events.

Karl Marx argued that it made sense to encourage anti-Semitism, because those who began by hating the Jews would go on to hate Capitalism in general. He called anti-Semitism “the Socialism of Fools” –hoping that it would ultimate lead the less foolish to embrace his statist ideas.

By the same token, conspiracism represents “The Historical Perspective of Fools/” No, it makes no rational sense, but it may for some theorists  represent the beginning of an effort to put our current age in context and to examine the broader sweep of human events.

With a big, juicy full moon high in the summer sky, and painting the surface of the lake near my home with silvery-yellow scales, it’s time for Conspiracy Day (Monday) on the Michael Medved radio show.

Every month, this exercise raises the question: why do so many Americans feel so powerfully drawn to conspiratorial explanations of current events?

The instinctive answer involves the sad state of the world today: the idea that with everything going wrong and people suffering from fear, anxiety and insecurity, there’s an irresistible urge to blame all the bad news on mysterious, all-powerful forces.

The chief problem with this explanation is that today’s world, while manifestly imperfect, is hardly nightmarish: in most respects, for Americans in particular, we’re living remarkably well and report high levels of satisfaction and optimism and satisfaction in our personal circumstances. Progress in other long-suffering parts of the globe (China, India, Eastern Europe) has been spectacular and benefited all humanity.

In 1942, we had reason to wonder about conspiracies: with most of planet earth devastated by war, or suffering horrendous oppression from multiple tyrannies (Hitlerism, Stalinism, Japanese militarism), having just escaped the global hardships of the Great Depression. But with all the reasons for worry and fear, the conspiracy industry hadn’t reached anything like the heights of insanity or popularity it enjoys today. Few people embraced the idiot theories about the Masons or the Council on Foreign Relations or the Illuminati as the hidden forces behind their misfortunes.

Twenty-five years later, the United States went through the most traumatic years of our recent history. The late ‘60’s and early ‘70’s not only produced a dispiriting, hugely costly War in Vietnam, but massive (sometimes bloody) protests at home (far more intense than any of the relatively mild protests against Iraq),  a series of devastating urban riots (with whole neighborhoods of Detroit, Newark, LA and many other cities burned to the ground, and serious talk of impending race war), run away inflation, rampant drug use, and the collapse of sexual morality. If any period naturally lent itself to the wildest conspiracy theories, it would have been the ‘60’s in the United States. But the paranoid fantasies remained relatively contained. Even the recent JFK assassination provoked far less skepticism regarding the official (and undoubtedly correct) explanation about Oswald as a lone gunman, than it does today (thank you Oliver Stone).

   In other words, by any fair or logical measure, it makes no sense for so many seemingly rational and informed people to turn so eagerly to elaborate, conspiratorial explanations for perplexing present events.