Existing scholarship often treats conspiracy theories (CTs) either as mere reflections of partisan alignment (correspondence thesis) or as separate, passive belief systems that are co-opted by parties (independence thesis). This study argues for a more nuanced, dialectical view. Specifically, this thesis explores the complex relationship between partisan identity and CT endorsement within the 9/11 Truth movement, centering on how activists navigate their dual identification as both CT believers and political partisans. Through 15 in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted with members and leaders of 9/11 Truth movement mostly affiliated with the Democratic Party, this thesis uncovers how CT endorsement among this community functions as a distinct activist identity that both reinforces and destabilizes conventional partisan attachments. Participants frame their involvement in the 9/11 Truth movement not simply as opposition to the official explanation, but as an extension of broader anti-war, transparency, and democratic ideals. These activists view their CT advocacy as a promotive, reformative stance in pursuit of social justice and civic engagement, challenging media and institutional representations that often stigmatize them as merely 'conspiracy theorists.' The thesis documents how the historical party-movement alliance between anti-war activism and the Democratic Party unraveled, especially as Democratic leaders and liberal media proved unreceptive to CT narratives and continued support for military interventions. This breakdown prompts cognitive dissonance among activists, leading some to realign with Republican or third-party candidates who are perceived as more open to alternative, "deviant" narratives and anti-establishment discourse—though this shift seldom translates into full partisan conversion. This thesis highlights the active role of CTs as social forces: they catalyze new forms of civic engagement and foster solidarity among marginalized, stigmatized groups. Rather than stabilizing partisan boundaries, CTs are seen to disrupt and reshape political identities, pushing activists to critique exclusionary practices and hegemonic discourse in both political and epistemic domains. This thesis also calls for a multidirectional, interpretive approach, such as utilizing grounded theory and qualitative interviews, to foreground the lived experiences and identity negotiations of activists navigating ambiguous, politically non-mainstream CTs. This approach moves beyond static models and emphasizes the dynamic, dialectical interplay between CT endorsement, party politics, and social movement activism in the U.S. context.
Devina Ayona (Sun,) studied this question.