"Never fight an inanimate object." - P.J. O-Rourke

What follows is my mental exercise, not an effort to persuade anyone. It's me "thinking out loud" in a written form. (How's that for an oxymoron.) Anyway, it's worth every penny you paid for it.

Donald Trump is now telling us that the criticism, opposition and accusations he's receiving are part of an orchestrated conspiracy on the part of the political establishment, the press, and all those who hold sway in society with an interest to preserve their influence and the status quo.
Interesting.

My first thought when I heard him use the C word is that I'd heard that before. I remember Hillary Clinton using that line in 1988, telling Matt Lauer there was a "vast right wing conspiracy" trying to bring down her husband. Turns out she used that same phrase earlier this year, saying the right wing conspiracy continues and is now better funded, though adding that the C word probably doesn't currently fit because it's out in the open.

Was Hillary right in 1988? Is either candidate correct when they say they're currently the target of a conspiracy? Is the press, taken as a whole (a tough thing to do because of individual outlets at all points on the spectrum), targeting Trump for special attack?

My brain wants to make sense of this (Pam says my brain is a scary place), so I try to organize various elements. To wit:

• Of course the Democrats are conspiring against Donald Trump, if we define that word to mean, "make secret plans jointly to commit an unlawful or harmful act." Let's assume only the word harmful applies here (I'm feeling generous.) Their plans are secret, at least to the extent the Russians haven't published their internal emails, so they are, by definition, conspiring. But the same can be said about the RNC, to the extent more than three of them can agree what to do regarding Donald. 
• Is the media so far outside the center range of objectivity, and is their imbalance so purposeful and "joint" as to fall under the term conspiracy? How would anyone measure that? Each observer will see the bias they want to see, with their candidate the victim of unfair scrutiny on issues that are either irrelevant or long since resolved. Think an email server and locker room talk. 
• That said, Trump has certainly provided more fodder for headlines and viewers than Hillary. He's done that on a daily basis. Media is a business whose first goal is to make money. To do that they need to write stories with lead lines and content that draw in consumers so they can sell the ad space that generates revenue. Nobody should be surprised that a) the various outlets feature stories that play to their corner of the market, and b) those stories focus on details their market segment finds fits their construct. Even if we assume they stick to factual information, there's plenty of room to shape almost any story to fit a variety of perspectives. This shaping begins with the reporter who writes notes on their device and continues up to the editor with his red pencil. Hey, I read an article written after a reporter interviewed me on something as inconsequential as my arrival in town to begin serving at a church and wondered when I read her story how what I said got so turned around. (I also decided at that point never to do a press interview again.) 
• Trump has, from the early days of the primary season, been extremely and openly critical of the press. Some of that is understandable; from the beginning they dismissed him and his campaign as a stunt, something of a reality show venture designed to boost his brand but with no chance of succeeding. So I get why he doesn't like them and has been openly critical of their reporting. But he should also understand why they might not, in turn, look on him objectively. Yes, on principle they should rise above any desire for payback for the sake of pure journalism, but that's expecting a bit much out of normal people. (Hey, you and I struggle with the same dynamic in our personal lives.) So I'll factor into the press coverage an allowance we'll call the Bad Attitude Factor. 
• A bigger and arguably more weighty factor: is there a growing bias in our country that favors an increasingly liberal (or progressive if you prefer) view of values, morals, and standards? The answer is obvious to anyone over 30 years old. Yes. Sexual mores have made the most obvious shift, but the areas of economics, family, education, and a host of other areas show a clear move away from the standard Judeo-Christian ethic. It's called secularization, and no objective observer can deny it. I won't speak for Donald in this regard, but across the spectrum folks seem to agree that a large part of our population is bothered, even frightened by this shift. They see it as a threat to our country and the core values they hold dear. Now look at a map of our country that shows red and blue states. The red conservative states far outnumber the blue states in count and lie in the heartland. The smaller number of blue states are primarily along the east and west coasts and are more populated. Now note where the media and entertainment industry is centered. An us. vs. them response from both sides is to be expected. Conspiracy? 
• And of course I see a spiritual dynamic at work, a battle between evil and righteousness. The Bible says the world is currently under the pervasive influence of the "spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2). No, they are not witting participants and would reject the notion there's a spiritual dimension to any of this. But the Bible says that this side of what theologians call the Consumation Satan is at work opposing righteousness, and uses the word warfare to describe the conflict (Eph. 6:10ff). So because the cultural leaders advancing secularization would, by definition, reject the notion of a spiritual dynamic we probably can't use the word conspiracy, which requires "making plans jointly." 

So is Trump correct when he said this week that he's the object of an orchestrated effort, a conspiracy by the media, the DNC, and even foreign powers? I doubt a Mexican billionaire is cooperating with players here to make sure Trump doesn't win. Too many barriers to overcome for that one to pass the smell test?

The press? Are they conspiring with each other in a coordinated effort to defeat the Donald? Naw, I don't think so. He didn't like their coverage of him during the primary season, called them all kinds of bad names, and he's now getting the payback he should have expected. That's not a conspiracy, it's called comeuppance. 

Hillary and the DNC? Of course. That's part of the game called politics, and he certainly should have expected that, newbie or not. Campaigns spend bags of money on opposition research to defame and discredit the opponent. Do their efforts fall into the unlawful category, or just harmful? The former wouldn't be unprecedented, as those of us old enough to remember Watergate can testify. 

But Hillary and the DNC hardly need to take those risks. Trump makes dirty tricks unnecessary; he does dirty so well on his own. Why waste money on opposition research when, on any given day, he'll shoot himself in the foot with an AK-47. The man has NO filter. (But thank you, Donald, for making me look positively circumspect.)

Methinks claiming a conspiracy theory is the last desperate claim of a guy who is realizing he's going down and better have an explanation other than, "I sure screwed that up." 

Yep, it's their fault.