Do I blog to persuade?
Earlier today on a thread about Trump, a commenter asked me how many people I thought I had persuaded to change their minds.
Now, that’s an interesting question, whether the commenter meant it as a taunt or not. Maybe the assumption is that for a person to spend all this time and effort writing posts on a blog that person must be assuming some ability to change people’s minds in the direction of supporting the blogger’s own opinions.
To have that ability and to exercise it would be very very nice indeed. But remember that this blog was started as a discussion about political change and how very very difficult it is to change one’s mind about anything, particularly politics. Although it happens, it’s unusual and ordinarily the result of a complex set of circumstances with multiple and sometimes very personal determinants.
So although an “Aha!” moment for my disagreeing readers as a result of reading one of my incredible post would be great, I think of it as exceedingly rare if it happens at all. That doesn’t mean I’m not trying to be persuasive when I write. I am (trying, that is), but whether I succeed or not I expect that very very few people who initially disagree with me will actually be persuaded to agree with me.
So, why on earth do I blog? Well, I gave some answers here. My response then was pretty much the same as my response would be now:
…[I had wanted] to get a bunch of interested people together regularly for some scintillating conversation, a sort of salon…
The moment I read my very first [blog] I realized I was onto something. Not all blogs, of course; maybe not even most of them. But here, here were my peeps! Here were a bunch of weirdos (sorry folks; I include myself) who liked to jaw-jaw at length about the very sorts of topics I had long been yearning to talk about. What fun!
Right now it’s not as much fun as it would be if I were foreseeing the prospect of a conservative victory in 2016. Right now it’s not as much fun as it is when I’m not dealing with a huge technical glitch that’s causing slow loading, a lot of wasted time, and much blog-posting frustration. But it’s still fun, and those same things still drive me: to talk at length with other interested people about things I find fascinating and worth talking about.
I like your blog. I like your style. And I like your perspective. We don’t agree on everything (maybe not even most things), but I enjoy coming here close to every day, and just seeing your insights on various issues.
And I like that you take some time with your posts, and don’t play the Twitter game where everything you write is a schnazzy 1-liner or the like. Reading your blog for me is kind of like getting to know you, and what makes you tick, and I find that refreshing, for what it’s worth.
Also, I kind of like your dry/wry sense of humor. 😀
I don’t come here for persuasion; instead, it’s more for insight and thoughtfulness. We won’t agree on everything, but there is common ground, and (often) angles and viewpoints that I might not have encountered on my own, and which I can use to “adjust” my perspective without incurring dismissal or condescension. That’s why I read blogs such as this.
Somehow, we seem to be accustomed to being told what to think, and we even seem to expect it somehow. Mass media seems to condition us to this (I avoid it for just this reason). Perhaps we’re so conditioned to being “sold” something that it’s seems abnormal not to play the role of consumer, even if the object of consumption is only an idea. Maybe that’s where the assumption of persuasion arises from?
This “community”, and others like it, are evidence that we’re not all stubborn small children who just need to be set straight by an expert elite. If communities such as this didn’t exist, my hope for humanity would suffer.
Now if I only had the time to participate more…
You have definitely persuaded me on a variety of things large and small. The two biggest ones that I’d point to would be voting for Romney (I did, after initially saying I wouldn’t), and you have definitely made a difference in how I view the power of congress.
Neo, I’ve been a regular reader since the days of the Sanity Squad podcasts. I found you through Q&O and was impressed with your skill as a writer as well as your subject matter.
Tom:
That warms the cockles of my heart.
Phil Underwood:
Thanks!
Thanks to all who have stuck with this blog through thick and thin. Sometimes it’s hard for me to believe I’ve been at this for that long.
Neo, yours is one of the very few political blogs I turn to. Like everyone else, I want thoughtful honesty above lock-step. I echo the previous sentiments.
Neo,
I read your blog nearly every day, and it is the only blog where I comment. I was born a conservative (thank you Mom and Dad) and find your ‘changling’ story a ray of sunshine. You analysis is priceless. Please keep on keeping on.
I believe that it’s extremely rare that someone says something that causes someone else to change anything more hard-set than a casual opinion – but that doesn’t mean I don’t welcome to chance to chat with adults. This is one of my favorite blogs and one of few places I post much anymore.
I think it is very difficult to move from liberal to conservative after age 25 or so. That’s why the Left’s complete ownership of the academy and the popular culture is such an advantage.
Sometimes you’re very trying neo.
…I simply couldn’t resist.
Uh. I should add (in a less catty tone), you changed my mind about Romney, too.
At least, for that election.
Right now I’m not all that happy with ‘im.
Granted that’s on course for everything this political season.
Not happy with the GOP. Not happy with Hil’. Not happy with Trump. Not happy with Cruz. Not happy with Kasich. Not happy with Congress. Not happy with the media. Not happy with the protests. Not happy with National Review. Not happy with Hot Air (I’ve almost entirely moved to Hot Gas, and I’m not entirely happy with them, either). Not happy with pundits. Not happy with Dilbert (oh gawd, Dilbert!!!).
OTOH, I’m getting a lot more me time, since I’m not paying as much attention to every passing wind in the political troposphere. There is that.
🙂
A great philosopher once wrote, “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
That commenter assumes that maybe because he is not moved by your arguments and observations, that nobody is.
.
WRONG!
.
For every commenter here, there are multiples of readers.
.
Not everyone will walk away completely persuaded, but if some do, that adds to the numbers.
.
You cannot calibrate your articles to the most committed Trumpster. They will never be open to any arguments. To the extent you persuade, it is because those individuals are open to persuasion. Those are the ones to aim for.
.
With your thoughtful, detailed, and light in tone articles, you ARE persuasive.
.
As much as I have searched and would like to find it, have never come across any convincing argument for Trump so far.
.
Some/many/most of us need a coherent message, a believable level of detail to assess his proposals, and a track record with good, upstanding character before putting unqualified support behind a candidate. Trump and his supporters have failed to make a case on all counts.
.
It seems others don’t need that standard to go all in.
.
Unless Trump radically changes all the above, it may well end up that our choices are between chaos vs corruption (or is that chaos and corruption vs corruption).
Neo, I will simply echo the thoughts of those who spoke before me. I do visit every day. It is refreshing; and it is nice to be able to express an opinion with a measure of confidence that those who disagree will do so courteously and thoughtfully.
As far as persuasion is concerned. How can we know? It is rare for someone to admit, “you changed my mind or my perspective”, but, I think you can assume that those who come here are open to rational argument; and that the effect can be cumulative. Of course sometimes it is just preaching to the choir; but, that too helps the choir.
Since you select and participate, you persuade
Whether its your purpose, or part of it, is yours to know and us to believe or not
You’re persuasive on any issue you cover where I have a knowledge gap, I’m too lazy to fill the gap on my own, and use your writing to plug the gap.
Your blog (and others) were great places to discuss and argue (politely and intelligently). I’m afraid the Trumpbots mission is to silence such discussion by sheer noise. As your personal history suggests, changes take time and often start with simple awakening to incongruities in the accepted truths. This is not a brute force persuasion but perhaps a gentle nudging to think more broadly.
I think being a classic conservative is hard and demands constant reflection and study. In this sense it is much like Talmudic Jewish reflection or that of the Reformed Protestant Churches. You are being asked to understand great truths in a complex world. Being part of the tribe or clan is much easier but less sturdy
I seem to be stopping by more and more, although I don’t post, maybe once? I found your blog because of your perspective as a liberal to conservative changeling.
In the last 8 years I’ve been thinking very hard on the subject and unintentionally seem to have converted myself, although I’m waaay over 25. I have no one to talk about it with, as I’m in a completely liberal bubble. Your thoughtful commentary is very helpful.
Btw, you have persuaded me to give Cruz another look. I was liking Rubio, oh well.
I’m a changer, too. I was 46 at the time. I lost friends over it. Now, I am very careful about talking politics. And some of my friends with whom I did are uncomfortable with me because I will not vote for Trump. Ever. So, I’m feeling more isolated than usual. I come here every day. You, Neo, Bookworm, and Fausta are my new Sanity Squad. I have fond memories of the old one. You provide me with intelligent conversation and intellectual companionship.
If you are referring to my comment, it was meant to provoke thought and not as a taunt.
The numbers aren’t pretty. Since the majority of people responding on the blog agree with you; you can’t convince them. Of the smaller number who disagree with you, most of those who have responded still disagree. Who knows about those who lurk?
You surely got through to a few at the beginning of the process before minds closed up tight. After that, I suspect you convinced approximately zero.
The question is why? I have my own opinion. I think many people, especially Trump voters are unprincipled, not in the pejorative sense meaning dishonest (in fact I suspect many Trump supporters are spectacularly honest) but rather in the pragmatic sense. They cannot or do not understand the importance of individual rights and freedom and so they dismiss Trump’s authoritarianism (including each and every one of his vices you reported) as a virtue. “He gets things done.” The way politicians are rapidly dispensing of our rights, I’d much rather have a president who (at least domestically) doesn’t get things done. A candidate should respond to the question; what will you do for the economy with; excuse me, I’m the president. It is my job to protect your freedom. The economy is your concern (or Congress at least). Ted Cruz came agonizingly close to this.
(Which by the way is why I would never complain about Obama playing golf. I wish he would ONLY play golf.)
Personally, I filter everything public, including every candidate, through the prism of individual rights and freedom, which is why I supported Ted Cruz at the outset of the process and why I still do. No other candidate has his life long record of fealty to the constitution. No other candidate even comes close.
And if and when I have to choose between a ‘mostly’ crook and a ‘mostly’ authoritarian, I’ll choose the crook. My last sips of freedom depend on it.
I don’t think I’ve missed a day in ten years.
Powerline in the morning; neo at night.
Only recently, however, have I started reading comments. It was a pleasant surprise to discover that dimension.
This is the only political blog I ever comment on (though not often), and I read your entries, Neo, almost every day. I’m in a delicate position in a literary world which is at least 90% hardcore liberal, so it would be damaging if my true leanings were known. So I keep my mouth shut.
Until 9/11, I was loyal to the Left. But then everything changed. And when I have re-examined issue after issue, I’ve discovered that I see matters much differently than before. It’s not easy.
miklos:
My original impetus for starting the blog was to tell my change story and to provide a forum (and a sort of haven) for other changers. I experienced so much personal and social turmoil as a result of my change, and yet it was all such a fascinating process, that I wanted to share it.
Neo, for whatever it is worth . . .
I read your blog for the insights that you offer. I used to read other’s comments and add a thought or two myself.
But, since I was called (by more than one commenter) a “Nazi” and “fascist” I have stopped commenting until this time. Such ignorance just isn’t worth it. I used to enjoy the give and take with polite people; but, that doesn’t happen any more and so it normally isn’t worth commenting.
But, I did this time want to say thank you for your blog. You do wonderful writing and I enjoy reading your viewpoint on issues (and those Jello posts too!)
I hope that the loading glitches get solved and that you continue to share your thoughts with others. (and make some money off the “passing of the hat”!)
Thank you.
charles:
I suggest you venture out into commenting again, if you feel like it. I try to nip name-calling in the bud here, but I don’t always catch it, of course.
Well, Neo, you changed my mind. You may recall that I’ve been so disappointed by the eGOP – to which I have contributed substantially for years – that I was in favor of Trump to remove the GOP impediment to formation of an alternative.
But your highlighting of Trump’s lack of principles (and I agree with Steve D on this) made it impossible for me to pull the handle (well, black the oval) for him. Likewise convinced my immediate family that Cruz was the only ‘real’ conservative left in the race. Our state still went for Trump so not sure it really mattered, but you did convince me. Any by extension, my family, which trusts my opinion.
Thank you.
I think many people, especially Trump voters are unprincipled, not in the pejorative sense meaning dishonest (in fact I suspect many Trump supporters are spectacularly honest) but rather in the pragmatic sense. They cannot or do not understand the importance of individual rights and freedom and so they dismiss Trump’s authoritarianism (including each and every one of his vices you reported) as a virtue.
really?
we do not understand the importance of individual rights and freedom?
you mean like the freedom to choose a candidate and vote for them without a constant stream of false ad hominem to shame or mentally abuse us into another decision… and while doing that calling us authoritarian?
So you agree with the discredited research on the authoritarian personality work of adorno who tried to prove those on the right or not left are authoritarian, and instead found that those on the left are either equally so, or more so?
The concept of “authoritarianism” as an explanation for conservatism has been like catnip to Leftist psychologists. They cannot leave it alone. It first arose among a group of Jewish Marxists in the late 1940s and was published in a 1950 book called “The authoritaian personality” under the lead authorship of a prominent Marxist theoretician, Theodor Wiesengrund, who usually used as his surname the stage name of his Spanish dancer mother — Adorno.
a founder of the frankfurt school…
Funny how you cant find one example of this right side authoritarian goverment other than the lefts projection and description, which doesnt fit.. like the socialist hitler, who is not on the right, being compared to the american founders.
if your ok with Cruz winning because the establishment wants him, over the choices of the voters who are free to choose.
then who is being the authoritarian? the centrists and the left? or the people who want their freedom to choose without being attacked, gamed, foiled, etc?
its typically authoritarian to say that you can choose what you want as long as its not the wrong choice, while the person who is all about freedom would say your free to choose, even if i dont agree…
you can see this in the current republican AND democrats as they are maneuvering to deny the people their choice because they think its the wrong one and they cant allow people to choose wrongly
[edited for length by n-n]
Cornhead:
“That’s why the Left’s complete ownership of the academy and the popular culture is such an advantage.”
Right. That goes to why electoral political analysts and GOP campaign operatives have been off guard by the Trump phenomenon. They don’t adequately factor in activism – in this case, the alt-Right activists that are the creative engine of the Trump phenomenon who’ve adapted the proven method and even some themes from the “Left’s complete ownership of the academy and the popular culture”.
That’s also why GOP attempts to learn from the Obama campaigns have only been partially effective. The Obama campaigns have been vaunted, but in fact, their success wasn’t chiefly due to innovations in the conventional political electoral sense. Rather, their advantage was superior activism. So merely picking up Obama campaign electoral political tactics, eg, the ballyhooed Cruz ‘data-driven ground game’, hasn’t been enough.
The real vital lesson from the Obama campaigns was the need for activism.
Where GOP campaign operatives were distracted by the Obama campaigns’ electoral political cover, Trump campaign operatives pushed aside the cover and gleaned the essential factor of Obama’s success: activism.
Even now, commentators as well as Neo commenters are non-plussed by current events because they remain stuck in an electoral political frame despite that by now it should be obvious that electoral politics have given over to the activist game.
Politics are downstream of culture. Participatory politics subsume electoral politics. The activist game is the only social cultura/political game there is.
They’re late, but it’s never too late. If conservatives were to form a permanent social activist movement, but could only afford to invest in one social area to start with, that area should be the campus – the academy. That’s the fount of conception and agents. Pop culture picks up from there.
Practically as well, with campus activism, limited means can achieve outsized effect and establish a base to grow operations.
The academy is the one social area that no competitive social movement can afford to give up. The conservative abdication of the campus has been a grave strategic error.
Leftist View from Left source…
Donald Trump’s Appeal to the Authoritarian Personality
A quick primer on the psychological force driving support for the Republican front-runner.
http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/trumps-appeal-to-the-authoritarian-personality
from less left
Donald Trump Supporters Are Less Authoritarian Than Ted Cruz Voters
And less anti-elitist than Bernie Sanders’ followers.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/14/donald-trump-supporters-are-less-authori
the big problem is that all the work in the social sciences is far left, they dont do much of anything else and they have made that science so junk filled that its mostly abandoned by anyone other than far left… its especially dominated by feminists… and racialists.
so any test they would apply to get the answers would be one of the old disproved tests from as far back as the 1930s… others are more for parents over children, which if you apply to any candidate would not be valid, and then their is their cherry picking like global warming, and then there is there mission to fight for the cause even if they have to game things and lie.
and
Oops. Fix: That goes to why electoral political analysts and GOP campaign operatives have been caught off guard by the Trump phenomenon.
Steve D – I rarely comment, but read daily. Do I agree with Neo on everything? No, but I agree with much of what she writes. So some of what she writes does give me a lot to consider.* If nothing else, my considerations become more nuanced. And the fact that she replies (and rarely gets upset/pissy) is another plus.
~~
What I find most eye-opening are the commenters here. They are outstanding! I get so much insight from them that I prefer to let her posts sit a couple of days in feedly then come here to read what people say. Of course, the downside to that is I miss that chance to be in a real time discussion. But it’s worth it to catch the variety of comments posted. I won’t list out all of those who I love reading, but I thrill to read the *personal experience* based insights of people like Parker, Beverly and Cornhead. Blert sometimes takes the words right out of my mouth, er… fingers.
~~
wrt/Trump – my opinions have changed tremendously. Unfortunately, they keep changing based on opinions and facts that show up here. Oh well, if nothing else, I’ve removed myself from the ‘let it burn’ camp.
~~
The only other political blog that I read is the Belmont Club and I rarely post there either.
~~~
* I love the fashion posts and the dance posts expose me to something completely new.
On a more serious note, I’ve changed a bit over the decades on issues, but have been libertarian/conservative since college. The biggest change of my life was switching from being an atheist of 25 years to a devout Roman Catholic. The most work I had to do was to deflate my intellectual arrogance. Namely, if in the area of faith and morals, if my opinion differs from the Church’s dogma, it is likely that I am wrong and my 2000 year old Church is right. That’s not an easy position to take in our individualistic, morally relativistic society.
The various matters of faith and morals weren’t arbitrarily chosen, nor are they there because ‘the Bible says so’ (although most have a specific Biblical origin). The issues have been discussed, argued and even fought about over the centuries. Pick an issue, any issue, and there are books, second century writings, and reams of documentation on it. I approach these topics with an open mind, with a mind to learn and come closer to Truth.
By doing this, I’ve come to open my mind to political arguments as well. Of course I go in thinking that I am right on any given issue, but I know down deep it’s possible this is one of the times someone else is closer to the truth. There’s a subtle intellectual difference in reading/listening to critique versus to learn, although I can’t explain it. I’m no longer married to my opinion or thoughts. And it’s right here at Neo’s that I experience it the most.
Well neo I find while you do have right leaning opinions you “attempt” to blog down the center with the “facts” be they popular with the left or right and let the reader come to their own conclusions.
I may be wrong but that’s what I get “most” of the time from your post.
OMG … is that what a free press is supposed to do!
I love your blog. I’m a political/news junkie who needs to unload, and your blog has been a wonderful place to do that. For the most part, very considerate commenters and insightful…even if I don’t agree.
Thanks for putting up with my TrumpTrain stuff. I know it is not what most of you want to hear on here. I thought it would be useful to share my POV, since I consider myself very conservative. I wanted to give you all the insight into a Trump supporter who doesn’t fit the ‘low-information’ or ‘uneducated’ assumptions about Trump voters.
JuliB, you are so right about the difference between listening to learn and listening just to critique. I work with college students, and I have a phrase to describe way too many of them: “Too smart to learn anything.” Too fast with the facile criticism, not enough reflection.
And neo, I come for the lucid prose. You have a way of breaking down issues and presenting them with clarity. I stop in every day. I’d comment more often but I’m supposed to be working.
roc scssrs Says:
March 17th, 2016 at 1:24 pm
JuliB, you are so right about the difference between listening to learn and listening just to critique. I work with college students, and I have a phrase to describe way too many of them: “Too smart to learn anything.” Too fast with the facile criticism, not enough reflection.
****
To my mind much of what has triggered this is the “self esteem” gambit used over the last twenty-five years.
This puffs the kids up to such a degree that they ALL start out astoundingly arrogant.
The typical HS grad I’ve trained actually attained what was expect of 6th graders — a century ago.
They are that lax in true knowledge and skills.
The rest of their ‘education’ is pure indoctrination — surely off balance as the Communists or the Nazis.
This is strikingly evident in foreign cultures where we can stand afar and look askance.
( Sweden, Norway, Denmark …)
NOTE: formerly commenting as “davisbr” (not very active for a year plus). time 2 change.
artfldgr –
Outstanding. And on point. As usual.
And the reason you remain my fav’ “interesting commenter” (on my still, so far, fav’ blog by my fav’ blogstress …both, for all the reasons already given by the community here, yada-yada).
There is this wonderful word that Georgette Heyer made frequent use of in her many lovely romances (term used as literary genre, not her personal love life lol).
Missish.
Ms. Heyer made such wonderful rhetorical use of missish, that I – and my lovely bride – adopted it over the years as our own favored descriptor for irrational, over-wrought, emotively puerile reactions of any sort.
(Allowing us to be critical, and mildly insulting, quite openly, in public. Yes, we’re bad people. We calls it like it is.)
So much of what passes for Trump criticism from those usually worth heeding is just …so …very …missish …that I find myself quite unable to come to grips with people seemingly unable to differentiate what is so obviously bombastic theater (and highly amusing, and astonishingly effective in this political context) with their decided lack of emotional detachment (and do please explain to me just how did this lack of rational credulity become so deeply entrenched in the psyche of people otherwise so erudite? …such a mystery).
It’s so hard to take anti-Trump “arguments” seriously when they’re so lacking in recognition of this.
So thanks Artfldgr. And well put. Indeed.
FWIW: I am, have been (well, since Walker dropped out) a Cruz supporter. But I don’t view Trump as the Second Coming of either the Nazarene nor Adolph. And it’s hilarious (though disconcerting) to see those who should know better being so inane.
Trump over Hilary the only choice? And you’re going to take a pass?
Now that’s missish.
You really need to get a grip.
I remember the first time I went door-to-door for a candidate, they told us not to alienate people. The occupant might not be persuadable to vote for your candidate, but as long as you don’t alienate him, he could vote for others in the party, or vote for your candidate next time. One man sows, another reaps. You don’t know who you’re persuading in the long run. And this kind of fits in with the theme of the blog: it’s often a long process.
‘you mean like the freedom to choose a candidate and vote for them without a constant stream of false ad hominem to shame or mentally abuse us into another decision… and while doing that calling us authoritarian?’
No I don’t. I mean the inalienable right to life and liberty. It seems the (highly derivative) right to choose a candidate is the only right Trump’s supporters ever mention but there is no natural right to vote. And BTW, that statement of yours is an attempt to shut other people up by conflating honest disagreement with mental abuse and as such is itself authoritarian. Sorry we hurt your feelings.
‘Donald Trump Supporters Are Less Authoritarian Than Ted Cruz Voters’
You should read what I wrote. I made no statement about whose supporters are more or less authoritarian. How could I know that? My comment was about the candidates themselves based almost entirely on their public statements and assuming they aren’t lying, acting or joking (see below).
‘people seemingly unable to differentiate what is so obviously bombastic theater (and highly amusing, and astonishingly effective in this political context’
The problem is that this let’s Trump (or any future candidate) off the hook for absolutely anything he/she might say as long as it is made to seem like theater. Politics isn’t a comedy act. Someone could incite a riot and then claim he was only kidding so long as he had built his persona carefully beforehand. Also if most of what Trump says is bombastic theater how do you tell what he really thinks?
Better to take politicians at their word and leave it at that.
Neo, I have only recently started reading your blog and it has become one of my favorites. What I value most in addition to your well reasoned thoughtful posts is the commenters and the give and take among them.
That being said, as you have seen from my previous comments, I find the one-way blasts from the Trumpers highly annoying.
As a suggestion I think you should require commenters to respond to questions before they are allowed to post anything else on that thread. Especially to comments that you make.
For example, in another thread “K-E” posted a bogus poll where you caught the fact that the numbers did not add up to 100%. She did not post a link and so far as I can tell has not responded with a link or tried to defend posting the partial numbers.
I would be interested in a two-way conversation with the Trumpers. I know it will be the usual changing of subjects or posting of talking points but who knows, I might learn something.
Bob –
You’re asking for the one thing that the internet can’t promise – back and forth conversation. It’s funny, we can choose from 36 different genders online, but when it comes to ideas, we can generally only click “like” and “dislike”. There’s a whole lot of room between those two choices.
If an article is so light on content that I can describe my reaction to it as “like” or “dislike”, then I’m not going to bother reading it.
As I said, the rule used to be politeness. It allows a person to be open to the possibility of what you’re saying, even if he doesn’t immediately agree with it. Maybe that still is the rule, at least the only rule that works, and the reason we’re kind of messed up right now is because we’re neither being polite nor trying to persuade. Our conversations are becoming like those grade-school true-or-false tests, where even one error earns the entire statement a False. We throw Falses at each other all the time, and we wonder why we’re not persuading anyone?
Bob_CA – I used to get comments posted to my feed, but so many didn’t show up I stopped doing it. So I don’t see comments to me unless I save the post and return to it.
And K-E is a she?