What's the point of political blogging?
Brian Leiter, who blogs at Leiter Reports, is a professor of law at the University of Texas at Austin. A left-wing moonbat, he's quite full of himself, perhaps deservedly so, and has what his admirers describe as a "no bullshit," "pungent" and "acerbic" style of writing. He looks with condescension upon anyone who disagrees with him; consequently, his blog is not for the easily offended. (Since I'm not easily offended, I've taken of late to reading him, in part because I like self-confidence in a writer, even when I disagree with him, and in part because he amuses me.)
In a post you can read here, and that Orin Kerr of The Volokh Conspiracy remarks upon here, Professor Leiter defends his blog's bellicose tone:
I am sometimes presented with the following criticism: "Your rhetorical style won't persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with you." That is no doubt true, but, as we've just remarked, it is quite rare to persuade anyone by a careful, reasoned argument--indeed, so rare, that I don't see it as worth the effort to try to do so on a blog. Even quite intelligent individuals, people with PhDs from MIT no less, turn out to be completely unable to follow a rational argument!
But the criticism also presupposes that I want to persuade. I shall let the readers in on a secret (though I suspect it is obvious to my regular readers): I am not interested in persuading anyone.
Professor Leiter goes on to describe -- quite accurately, in my view -- the nature of political blogging:
In any case, my goal in posting on various political topics is simply to alert like-minded readers to ideas and evidence and arguments which help strengthen their convictions regarding the truths they've already understood or glimpsed, as well as to give some expression to our collective outrage and dismay.
Ain't that it? People who read poliblogs are, I suspect, well-settled in their views; they visit blogs looking to be informed, surprised, entertained, encouraged or shocked, or perhaps to clarify their own thinking or to test the strength of their arguments against those of the opposition. But they are not looking to have their minds changed.
Writers are supposed to write with purpose and audience in mind. When I sit to blog, I just assume that my readership agrees with me, at least in the main. Accordingly, I try to post items that likeminded readers will find informative, engaging, useful or amusing. To borrow from R.W. Emerson's letter to Walt Whitman, I endeavor to post material that stikes the South Park Republican as "fortifying and encouraging." Or that causes him to call his congressman. Or that induces him to shake his head in disbelief.
Readers who consistently disagree with me are, I presume, seeking the thrill that comes from righteous indignation, and that too I am happy to provide. Unlike Professor Leiter, I do not wish that those who disagree with my views "would simply 'go away' and read something else." (Occasionally, though, they 'go away' on their own, as did one woman who quit reading me after I referred to San Francisco as a "large, outdoor lunatic asylum.") Besides, now and again the conservative and liberal can make common cause. Here, for example, a liberal blogger writes of the U.S. Supreme Court's abominable decision in Kelo: "It's worse than I feared. I'm actually on the same side as Right Side of the Rainbow."
Blogging is a revolution in media and mass communication. And it's exquisitely democratizing. But the aims of the revolution are fraternal, not conversional. Polibloggers rally the troops; they don't recruit them.