The Out of Touch Blogosphere?
Posted by Adam Graham in : Abortion, BloggingJoe Carter of Evangelical Outpost has some keen observations on the Values Voter summit, he also offers his suggestion as to why readership of blogs on the right are stagnant:
1. The most significant insight I gained from The Washington Briefing was not about the candidates but about the bloggers: Right-leaning bloggers are out of touch with a large portion–if not the majority–of conservatives in America.
Anyone who wonders why the audience for the right-side of the blogosphere is stagnant at an estimated 200,000 readers should look at the supply and demand curve. The right side of the blogosphere continuously focuses on secondary issues and ignores the primary concerns of American conservatives.
I talked to the bloggers on the panel, many of whom are the same bloggers I read daily and interact with here in DC. Then I talked to the people from the audience, most of whom are not political junkies. The differences in the discussions was eye-opening. The top four issues that voters said were important to them are “life” (e.g., abortion, euthanasia, embryo destructive research, etc.), marriage, tax cuts, and permanent tax relief for families. Aside from tax cuts, these issues are rarely talked about by the bloggers on the Right. Three out of four issues are ignored–and this is just the top of the list.
The stark contrast between the heartland conservatives and the DC-centric bloggers became apparent in the panel discussion I moderated on Political Blogging. Although most of the panel members could be classified as moderately social conservative, few of them focus primarily on social conservative issues.
When I mentioned this fact, Erick Erickson made an interesting comment that to be a blogger on the front page of RedState you had to be pro-life. Such a litmus test is noteworthy but raises the question of why, on the most popular center-right blog on the web, you’re more likely to find a post about earmark reform than abortion. (Of course, RedState isn’t the only blog that gives that impression. One member of the panel audience noted that Ed Morrissey of Captain’s Quarters seemed to become less “pro-life” as his blog became more popular.)
Rob Neppell (aka N.Z. Bear) made an astute point that the concerns of the largest blog on the Right–Instapundit–tends to drive our conversation. He pointed out for the audience that Reynolds was not a conservative but a self-professed libertarian who was once quoted as saying he’d be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons.”
The panelists chuckled; the audience didn’t seem as amused. The reaction speaks volumes. The fact that many center-right bloggers care more about getting linked by a radical libertarian than they do in discussing the concerns of their fellow conservatives is one of the primary reasons the Right blogosphere is a failing to have the same impact as the Left.
I am reminded somewhat of the Blue Collar Muse’s speech last week where he suggested the way to build a successful blog was to write about what other people cared about. Certainly, there’s something to be said for this. People who are focused primarily on social issues are not going to find a lot to read on Captain’s Quarters or some other conservative blogs. Gay marriage is almost never discussed at Michelle Malkin. However, here at Adam’s Blog, you’ll find every issue discussed fairly frequently with the exception of gay marriage.
Indeed, you do find quite a few blogs that focus on the matters that matter to Values Voters. While many are quite popular (relative to the blogsophere), none has really broken away from the pack.
I spoke at the Conservative Leadership Conference and the top four issues from attendees:
Cutting Taxes
The War on Terrorism
Reducing the National Debt
Success in Iraq
What this illustrates is that there are two sides to the Conservative movement and suggests that perhaps the issue is not the what of what people are writing but the failure to embrace new technology, by both social and fiscal conservatives.
That said, it would help if some bloggers did talk a bit more about these hot button social issues that many steer clear of, and if others could at the very least stop acting like we’re a plague. Ill-considered posts like this one hardly help. Making the pretense you can throwt Social Conservatives out the airlock of American politics and win is insulting and silly, but many bloggers make it.
As Joe points out, there’s a strong link between Social and Economic Conservatism:
The second most significant insight (though I had been ruminating on this for a few months) is that the semantic distinction between “social conservatives” and “fiscal conservatives” presents a false dichotomy. Conservatism is rooted in principles (transcendent moral order, social continuity, prudence, etc) that naturally have implications for economics. If you are a conservative you are conservative about matters of society and thus likely to espouse economic policies that are fiscally conservative as well. But conservatism cannot begin with economic or fiscal issues as the primary concerns, much less push social issues to the periphery. Anyone who thinks tax reduction is essential while abortion and marriage are secondary or unimportant cannot rightly be considered to be “conservative”, at least not by the standards of the American conservative tradition. Currently we don’t have a label for people whose primary philosophical concern is their pocketbooks. It is becoming increasingly apparent, though, that we can simply call them “Republicans.”
Social issues do have a fiscal consequences. Whether, it’s a smaller pool of young workers paying into Social Securiy thanks to abortion, increased public assistance for Single Mothers after the Sexual Revolution, or increased crime leading to higher enforcement costs as people have moved away from a respect for God. Social liberalism has a price tag, and the issues ultimately are one. The problem is all the same. To pretend that Social Conservatism is some extra-ciricular point is utterly foolish.
Finally, Joe shares this fact from the event:
Bloggers talk incessantly about “media bias” but tend to overlook their own. Case in point: Despite the reporting of some bloggers, Rudy was not warmly received and did not win over anyone. He was treated politely because he had the courage (audacity?) to show up at the event. But the fact that he received fewer votes in the onsite straw poll than Tom Tancredo shows that he is as unpopular as ever. The idea that Rudy is a palatable general election candidate for so-cons is wishful thinking.
Indeed, he was tops among the Republicans in the poll question of who they absolutely would not see elected, Giuliani finished 3rd at the FRC strawpoll, behind Hillary and Barack Obama and ahead of Dennis Kucinich.
![SaveForMike.com [Grassroots]](http://www.christianevents.co.uk/saveformiketicker.png "SaveForMike.com")
Comment by Jay
The number of people in this country who care about who the neighbor is sleeping with is dwindling just like the number of people who believe the universe is 4,000 years old. It doesn’t put food on the table or add to the 401k. And I can honestly say that arguing that aborted fetus’ don’t contribute to social security as another reason to be pro-life is incredibly callous and a good example of how not to win converts. No wonder right-wing bloggers don’t write about it.
Currently we don’t have a label for people whose primary philosophical concern is their pocketbooks.
What?!!! It’s called Libertarianism!! Really! Look it up!
Seriously, Adam, the average American agrees with Giuliani that abortion should be legal but rare, gays should be allowed the exact same rights as heterosexuals, and, unlike Rudy, that tax cuts can do more harm than good in some cases. Reagan was wrong – deficits do matter.
In short, “Values Voters” are becoming more marginal and the content of right-wing blogs reflects this.
Comment by Adam Graham
Actually, it’s 6,000 years and I’ve heard of Libertarianism, I was quoting Joe Carter, not making the statement myself. As for the “average American” and your statements abotu the direction of the country, this is wishful thinking really. We can play games with arguing between polls all day long. The fact is Conservatives are outbreeding liberals, the homeschool movement is expanding, and the kids are following closely to the parents. Long term, you’ll lose.
As to my argument on social security, I don’t consider the argument callous, I consider it factual, and a movement that believes women should be able to get an abortion to fit into a wedding dress would not be well-advised to talk about “calloused.”
Comment by Jay
So you believe the world is only 6,000 years old?! Can we at least agree that it is round?
By quoting him I assumed you agreed with him. My bad.
Picking out one of the most depraved reasons a woman could use to rationalize an abortion does not cover the whole issue and puts a Strawwoman in said wedding dress. Very Surberish of you.
Finally, your anecdotal anthropology is underwhelming.
Comment by Adam Graham
I’m not making it up:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831
It’s the real problem for liberals. As for the wedding dress thing, if you want to publicly say a woman should not have the right to get an abortion if she just wants to fit in her wedding dress then it won’t apply, but you can’t, and neither can any major pro-choice person.
Comment by Abby
Just one point. Yes, it is callous to argue that aborted babies could be funding social security. But it’s also silly. Unwanted babies are much more likely to be born into poverty and unhealthy family situations, and are therefore statistically more likely to be a drain on all social programs, including prisons. I’m not suggesting that’s a good reason to get an abortion (or anything else, for that matter), merely that your argument about s.s. is silly.
And why can’t these “wedding dress” women find a good seamstress?
If it’s a question of out-breeding, then it’s just a matter of time before we’re all speaking Spanish.
¿Donde esta la biblioteca?
Comment by Jay
Brooks only states conservative vs. liberal; I didn’t see him use any of your “hot-button issues” to define conservatism. Still no proof that a majority of people hold social issues more dear than fiscal issues.
As far as the wedding dress, I hate what some people do with their free speech rights but I’m not about to advocate for them to lose those rights.
You never said how old you think the universe is. How old?
Comment by Adam Graham
6,000 years definitely could be, might be a few more.
Also, Jay, are you arguing the ones having the kids are Socially Liberal Republicans. Not likely. Religious folks tend to have more kids than non-religious and if conservatives have more than a liberal, it’s not a giant leap to assume social conservatives are having the kids.
And Abby, poverty is a transitory state for most kids, it’s not a forever thing despite the liberal propaganda.
Comment by Jay
But you are evading answering the question of conservative on what. Just like your evading answering how old you think the universe is.
Believe it or not, Adam, there are true Christians that are environmentalists and against gun control. Where do they fit? Some actually believe that abortion is humane in certain circumstances and Adam The Blogger has no say in the matter. Where does that fit in the GSS?
Comment by Adam Graham
Oh, I have no doubt social conservatives are a driving factor. You take a look at the Episcopal Church, their leader stated they don’t believe in having large families and that it’s irresponsible. You want to try and nitpick that pro-choice people who love gay rights are having tons of kids, that’s your argument, but from my experience for the most part, it’s on the social issues spectrum. This is also born out by the fact that polls show a larger number of pro-lifers among young people.
As to the age of the Earth, I scanned the post and I don’t see that was a topic of what I wrote. I’m not going to answer. I lean towards a younger Earth, but I’m not all dogmatic about it.
Comment by Abby
So here’s the thing. I said “poverty and unhealthy family situations”. So next you’re going to tell me that children born to crack addicts aren’t at a disadvantage? That growing up with a crack addict mother and rapist/junkie neighbors it just “transiatory” (sic). My parents home schooled me to protect me from people like that, because they believe exposure to those people is dangerous, yes, even for Christian children. I happen to think they’re right.
I’m not arguing for income redistribution or more social programs. It is just a simple fact that people born into bad situations are much less likely to be successful, and therefore less likely to contribute to s.s.
It’s not liberal or conservative, it’s just a simple fact. Ideology doesn’t enter into the argument until one considers what, if anything, to do about it.
You know, many many people find it insulting to have their complex and considered opinions reduced to stereotypes like “liberal propaganda”. Ya, I’s jus a dumb chick, and i jussa beleve wat des tels me.
Get a life.
Comment by Adam Graham
The thing with a payroll tax is everybody that works contributes to social security. Unless you’re going to argue that everybody aborted would not work or be disabled, the argument still stands. Ad Hominem/Straw man ignored.
Comment by Abby
My argument is that it’s unrealistic to assume that the unwanted babies would provide a net gain for s.s. While many will grow up to be productive, the distribution skews heavily toward the poor end of the scale. Impoverished communities do not provide a net gain for s.s., or social programs in general.
Drug dealers don’t pay taxes
Pimps/prostitutes don’t pay taxes
Many Drug addicts die(don’t pay s.s) or end up in prison for possession or theft. They don’t pay s.s, and incarceration is a heavy burden on the taxpayer.
The % of severe mental illness is surprisingly high in impoverished communities. The mentally ill either live on the street (don’t pay) or get benefits (s.s. or otherwise)
Single mothers earning minimum wage receive more in benefits (s.s. or otherwise) than they pay.
Minimum wage earners/day workers get all their medical attention at ER’s, which costs the taxpayer.
Impoverished communities typically have underground economies, i.e. many don’t pay s.s.
I could go on for pages. Again, I am absolutely NOT saying the world would be better off without these people.
I’m merely saying that your argument about s.s. is specious at best. Simply not the real world. The picture you paint is ridiculously oversimplified.
Thanks for the discussion, Adam. I’m sure “the argument still stands”, but I’m done. I’ll pick out one of those other 50,000 blogs to read.
Comment by Blue Collar Muse
Adam – (And Jay and Abby, too)
I think this specific post stands in pretty strong support of your comments within the post based on the number of comments on the post.
You picked a socially conservative stance and you’ve garnered more comments for it than any other post currently up on your homepage. Unfortunately, the only ones commenting are folks that disagree with you. Their contribution is to disagree (no problems there whatsoever) and to try and deflect attention away from the original points you made while trying to get you to sound silly (in their opinion, anyway) in order to marginalize you or to get your rationale views indelibly linked to irrational ones.
A similar thing happened to me in a recent series on abortion that I did. Only one other conservative blogger chimed in and that one only very late in the game despite his being the actual catalyst that prompted a 3 post series on the topic.
I’m not sure what it means but it’s interesting. Tennessee or Idaho, the same thing is going on. At the risk of sounding silly, it’s almost as if there’s a concerted effort to keep certain topics under pressure. But why? I’m reminded of one of my kids’ movies, ‘A Bug’s Life’. A small group of surly grasshoppers were able to suppress a much larger group of ants by intimidation. The one fear the grasshoppers had was that one day the ants would realize their numbers made them more powerful and they would throw off the grasshoppers rule.
I don’t know that’s what’s happening here but it’s an interesting avenue to explore.
Adam, thanks for both the link and for making me think a little bit in odd directions.
Blue
Comment by Adam Graham
Look, I think that not all these people who get abortions are poor and that’s where adoption comes in as well.
BC Muse, I think you’re absolutely on to something. People love to shout that abortion is a losing issue and no one cares even as polls show increasing number of young people are pro-life and that the pro-abortion side is losing over time. The goal is to make it appear true and to get people to believe it, so they conclude it’s hopeless.
Comment by Jay
The central point of the post was that right wing bloggers do not spend enough time writing on social conservative issues and that that has left their readership stagnant. I disagreed with the notion that a majority of people who call themselves conservative do so because of gay marriage or abortion and as yet Adam has not been able to show that I am wrong. The only link he provided does not give detail to “conservatism” (trying to paint 300,000,000 people with one of only two brushes is overly simplistic).
The only reason I also brought up the wedding dress or the age of the universe is to show one of the reasons the Falwell/Robertson model of politics/Christianity will continue to dwindle – it sounds and is uneducated.
Comment by Jay
This is what I’m talking about.
Comment by Andrea Graham
Galileo was uneducated, too. At least according to the consensus opinion of the, ahem, scientific community of his day. There’s quite a bit of scientific evidence that is being ignored because it doesn’t fit with the worldview of atheistic researchers. And that’s bad science: “We’ll follow the evidence wherever it goes, unless it leads to God.”
Comment by Boggs
Religious belief is faith based. It is by design irrational. I don’t mean that in any pejorative sense, it just is. Faith means believing that which has no rational underpinning. If God was on Good Morning America every morning, faith would be unnecessary. Education is in a sense irrelevant, if you’re a believer. I was raised in very religious home, and our church taught us that any education beyond vocational training was a threat to my religious beliefs. I have to admit, they were right. A semester of ancient history really gets you thinking.
Abortion is the ONLY ‘winning’ issue these people have.
Without abortion, George Bush would be sitting on a barstool in Crawford right now (and we’d all be better off). Bush wanted their vote so he could pick there pockets. Personally, as a fiscally conservative white male, I wish we could overturn RvW just so we could get rid of these opportunistic thieves. Bush couldn’t care less about gay marriage or abortion. His loyalty is to his economic class — he would sooner invite a millionaire gay abortionist to dinner than some poor but pious abortion activist. I’m not singling out Bush, I mean the whole ‘conservative’ establishment. NONE of the current candidates are sincere about their ‘religious’ credentials.
Abortion is the ONLY ‘winning’ issue these people have, and personally, I’d like to take it away from them.
Comment by Jay
At least according to the consensus opinion of the, ahem, scientific community of his day
Which was controlled by The Church!! He wasn’t ruled incorrect through peer review, he was branded a heretic! Wow. Bad argument.
I still say “Values Voters” are declining.
Comment by Boggs
I really hate that “values voters” label. We’re all values voters. Everyone who makes the effort to cast a ballot is voting for their values.
The label itself implies that only the values of the religious right qualify as true values. You may not agree with my values, but they are values none the less.
I think that the religious right has finally figured out they’ve been sold a bill of goods by their leaders, and are simply loosing interest.
Moreover, the values of the powerful religious right don’t necessarily line up with the values of religious people as a whole. I mean, let’s face it, Jesus spent a lot more time talking about feeding the poor than sexual orientation.
Comment by Adam Graham
Liberals on intelligent design are behaving more like the Catholic Church of old than true scientists. There are anti-intellectuals in the church, but all are not like that. Jesus cared about righteousness and justice.
Comment by Boggs
Yes, I know, it’s really quite shocking. Why, in San Francisco they have creationist in stocks in the public square. Rumor has is that the rack and iron maiden are frequently used at UCLA to torture the creationist tendencies out of those who would but seek the truth. Oh, the horror.