I know, I promised another look at the “Is conservatism out of gas/dead” question, but I have a bit more groundwork to lay before I get there. With the spectacular failure of the Thompson campaign, with its dependence and major source of support in the conservative blogosphere, I have to answer the question of whether we have any actual influence.
The question is properly answered with, “…with whom?” It is painfully obvious that, though we are by and large “Average Joes”, we have no influence with the larger populace of “Average Joes”. Because we are willing to put thoughts to electrons, we are by definition now different than the larger populace. It is an over-generalization, but we pay closer attention than the non-blogging Joe, and we put different weights on the various opinions and bits of news. Morever, we do not have nearly the reach of either the dead-tree/video media or the talk-radio media. Some sites may well reach beyond the “circular-fire” of like-minded bloggers to a larger audience; this place isn’t one of them.
The prime example of our, and the libertarians’, lack of influence with the larger populace is the 2008 elections. Without a doubt, the two candidates that have received the most blogger support are Fred Thompson and Ron Paul. However, neither candidate received more than 14% of the vote in any primary or caucus, and Flip’s unweighted average vote share for both of them is 18.1% (Thompson 11.2%, Paul 6.9%).
I would also be remiss if I didn’t mention a basic difference in blogging philosophy between my end of the blogosphere and the liberal end. We, by and large, see blogging as a way to vent our frustrations. The left, by and large, sees blogging as another means to the political end of total domination.
That leads me to the influence we do have with politicians and others in the political process. It is not, by and large, the reason behind the blogging. If it were, we’d be calling Ned Lamont “Senator”. Rather, the very things that make us different from the larger populace are the things that allow us to have influence. Specifically, the fact that we pipe up is why the pols and pros listen. On a given issue, there is surprisingly-little comment from the populace to the pols, and though we are by definition a bit different than the larger, silent populace, we’re closer to that populace than just about anybody else likely to get a politician’s ear, be they media or lobbyists. I don’t like to brag, but I know both from my stats and conversations I’ve had, I do have a not-insignificant readership in both Madison and Milwaukee’s courthouse.
The prime example of that influence was the torpedoing of amnesty. I have no doubt that, in a vacuum, we’d have something north of 10 million freshly-minted “Americans”. Most of the pols were for it, most of the pros were for it, outside of talk-radio media, the media was for it. Normally, that would be more than enough to have made it happen, even with 70% public opposition. However, we bloggers and talk radio climbed that wall, raised a ruckus, and knocked amnesty down.
I could also easily cite the end of President Bush’s dream to put Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court. Indeed, that was among the first things I blogged about, and that was the first “theme” I had.
Revisions/extensions (1:14 pm 1/25/2008) – Dean Barnett answers it far better than I could, only his focus is talk radio (H/T – Charlie).