Preaching to The Converted

In a recent post, Preaching to The Choir, I wondered if there was any point in trying to convince others of our ideas through blogging. I mentioned PJ O'Rourke's article in the Atlantic Monthly. O'Rourke hates listening to guys like Rush Limbaugh because he essentially agrees with them. I've had the same experience.

I received Sean Hannity's, Let Freedom Ring, as part of a magazine subscription. I started reading it, but soon became disinterested. I don't think I even finished it and it's not because it was a bad book, but because I agreed with everything in it. Heck, I could've written the book myself.

Now, The Belmont Club in a post titled, You Talkin' To Me posts about the same type of thing.

Irving Kristol is cited as listing some rules for polemicists. You can go to Belmont Club to read the rules in depth, but basically what is being said is that you should forget about trying to convert someone who takes an adversarial view of your opinions. Kristol goes on to say that we should really be "preaching to the converted".

Belmont Club ties this concept to some recent observations about Al-Qaeda,

Al Qaeda appears to have taken his advice or at least independently come the same conclusion. STRATFOR's Geopolitical diary for June 21, 2004 argues that the recent beheading of American Paul Johnson in Saudi Arabia and a similar threat against a Korean kidnapped in Iraq is pitched to the Middle Eastern audience. This supports observations that Al Qaeda has given up on directly confronting the United States in favor of a new strategy of trying to gain influence and power in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

He concludes with this,

The Al Qaeda may now understand that it cannot topple America -- let us not say the West -- by a coup de main. It has now settled into a war of civilizations. It is consolidating its own forces in a final bid to impose Islam on humanity. And by it's actions it is forcing populations long asleep to reinvent themselves.

The observations about Al-Qaeda are interesting, but I'm not sure if we've answered the question about how blogging can influence people. After considering this question I've come up with three roles that I believe blogging plays in the development of ideas:

1. Motivating The Faithful - Yes, we are for the most part blogging to others who share the same opinions, but that doesn't mean it's a waste. Reading similar opinions can help us to be more bold in expressing our own in the "marketplace of ideas". Just knowing that you aren't alone can be a powerful motivator.
   
2. Educating Others - Blogging has been trumpeted as a way to usurp old media's stranglehold on the news and especially concerning how the news is spun. To a great extent, then, blogging serves to disseminate facts without forcing anyone to rely on a single outlet for their source of news. Additionally, presentation of the news is often slanted in very subtle ways and many benefit from those who are able to observe this and point it out to others.
   
3. Influencing Opinion - This is probably the least effective role of blogs, yet it's the one that people often cite as a motivator for getting into blogging in the first place. It's great when we can win someone over to our point of view, but that isn't going to happen very often. Howerver, that doesn't mean that it isn't worth a try. Presenting some actual facts along with an argument for a particular position can go a long way toward making it convincing.