The Futility of Political Blogging.

Preaching to the choir. That’s the problem. I’m gonna come out and say it, no introductory story, no clever phrases and such. Our problem is we’re preaching to the choir. We’re reading the Bible to Jesus. Telling Thomas Jefferson about the Declaration of Independence. You get the point.

Bloggers, in general, are the liberal demographic. There’s some out there who are conservative, some republicans, some independents, and some crazies. But for the most part, the blogosphere is vastly Democrat. So why are we spending so much time and energy extrapolating ideas to the blog scene, when they most likely already agreee with us?

Perhaps it’s vanity. (Aside: Tag ‘seven deadly sins’ on your blog, and your visits will go through the roof. It’s completely true, and kinda creepy.) We love to write our thoughts and have someone agree with us. That’s why there are so many conformoblogs (Enigma Engine might, unfortuntely, be included.) Blogs that don’t really say anything ‘out there’, break no boundaries, or raise new discussions.

So if we as Democratic bloggers, as Liberal bloggers, aren’t reaching out their to speak to the independents and conservatives, to persuade them and inform them, what are we really doing? Wasting space on the intarwebz for sure, but I’m still looking for a higher purpose. (Probably vanity again, cause certainly I’m doing something more!)

But what is it? Is it a practice on the ideal that you have to say things repeatedly to the American public to get them to understand a concept? If so, maybe that’s why Barack Obama’s campaign is utilizing the grassroots so effectively. Maybe there’s a synergy in the numbers. Maybe the wide variety of topics and discussions on these ‘conformoblogs’ mean that more people can find the information they need.

Maybe maybe maybe. These things are inherently true, yes, but are they inherently useful? Are they actually performing their service or are we just mimicking what our forefathers in the blogosphere have already said? Does following in their footprints in this way aid our goals or impede them?

I know I’m asking a lot of questions in this article. I really don’t have the answers, myself. I want to believe that I’m different and unique and that my writing is reaching even one person in a way they haven’t been reached yet. I want to believe I’ve turned a few votes. But again, I don’t have the answers to these questions. I’m asking a lot of questions because, perhaps someone out there knows the answer. And hopefully they’ll blog about it, or at least just comment here and appease my need for a purpose.

Advertisements

5 Responses

  1. Right on and valid, but every time I see independent hits on my site I know its worth it… on mind at a time, babe.

    If I change even one mind, then all my efforts are not in vain.

    Peg (if thats you), if not your alter ego, than please Mekhami, cross post this to the Wild Wild Left.

    Excellent thoughts.

    http://thewildwildleft.soapblox.net/frontPage.do

  2. Thanks for the comment!

    Haha, we’re two people, Pegleghippie and Mekhami. We’ve known each other since middle school. Good story, one that I can’t do justice in a short comment or a long article.

  3. In his book, La dissociété [which you can translate as “dis-society” or “Dissociation”–which denotes an old concept, “alienation”], the political philosopher, Jacques Généreux, describes neo-liberalism (or, what in American parlance is called “neo-conservatism” or “ultra-conservatism”) the ” ‘nataural child’ of _all_ the twinned currents of poltical thought which have given birth to modernity.”

    _All_ of them, from Left to Right, all have in common a mistaken conception of human beings’ nature and development. With that as the point of departure, the main themes of Left and Right “respond” very differently to this mistaken conception of basic human nature and needs.

    The neo-conservatives’ response is centered in fostering a world of continuous and growing competition among all–which goes beyond the economic sphere until it leaves virtually nothing unthreatended by the encroachment of competitive drives and ambitions–everything.

    That thesis, if correct, suggests that liberals as well as conservatives have yet to recognize that they lend themselves in many ways to the trends and habits which underlie the fiercely competitive world in which we all live–and from which we all, to greater or lesser extents, _both_ suffer _and_ profit.

    There is a world of insight still left mistunderstood. Political blogs are practically the sole arena where such matters can be raised and addressed.

    “proximity1”

  4. Dude, I am so freaking out that Prox showed up on our blog.

  5. “Dude, I am so freaking out that Prox showed up on our blog.”

    I take that as a most charming commpliment. Why _wouldn’t_ I “show up” in an interesting discussion?

    there’s a correction due to part of my post above, where I intended to write,

    “describes neo-liberalism (or, what in American parlance is called “neo-conservatism” or “ultra-conservatism” ) the ” ‘nataural child’ of _all_ the various and ‘twinned’ currents of political thought which have given birth to modernity.” (since the 17th century’s early Englightenment thinkers, that is.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: