New conspiracism attacks democratic institutions outright rather than just rejecting compromise

Evidence

Hofstadter studied the appearance and effects of the “paranoid style” in American politics because he saw it as a threat to democracy. Conspiracism threatened what he saw as the moderate and pragmatic requirements of liberal democracy. Because of what they are up against, and because of what is at stake, conspiracists incline to secrecy and aggression. They reject mediation and compromise. Conspiracists, as Hofstadter saw them, are averse to “the manner of working politicians.” We agree with Hofstadter’s assessment: the urgency that disdains any ordinary approach to politics as inadequate is something classic and new conspiracism share. Yet there is this difference: the new conspiracism not only is averse to the mundane workings of democratic politics but assaults its institutions and practices wholesale. — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying, 113

Categorization

• DEFINE: Marks the book’s central working distinction between classic and new conspiracism.
• XREF: connects to: Political conspiracism now targets core democratic processes themselves — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 18; Conspiracism’s core target is democratic disagreement itself, not this or that policy — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 21; New conspiracism abandons explanatory theory and targets democratic legitimacy — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying: The New…, 11 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• New conspiracism abandons explanatory theory and targets democratic legitimacy #expands (0.88) — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying, 11
• Framing parties as conspiracies constitutes an attack on democracy itself #exemplifies (0.85) — Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum, A Lot of People Are Saying, 191