A couple of days ago I posted a comment to this entry over at Savage's blog. In reply to my comment John posed a question about why I thought Ron Paul gets so much attention among bloggers, as opposed to someone like Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter. VA interjected with her own thoughts which closely resemble my own original thoughts on the matter.
I put some more reflection to it before I answered John, because I thought the question quite appropriate and deserving of a more full answer than that which came to mind immediately following the reading of the question. Indeed, there has to be a reason why I believe Paul garners so much attention among bloggers, and I would take it a bit farther and say: there has to be a reason for why I believe Paul garners so much positive attention among conservative leaning bloggers...
I tried to answer the question as best I could given the thoughts I'd put to it, but I still get a strong sense that my answer is just not adequate enough. And here's where the appeal in the title comes in...
I wonder whether any of you have put much thought to this question? But whether you have or haven't, have you any ideas you'd be willing to share as regards the reasons you think Paul gets so much quality attention from bloggers, and why Tancredo and Hunter don't?
There's no doubt that Paul gets more attention than the other two. I had CTO find out for me a while back what some of the most searched for items are as respect this blog's general focus. And Ron Paul was among the top of that short list. Tancredo and Hunter were not even in the same ballpark.
On the one hand, Paul was involved in the famous incident with Giuliani which probably helped to draw to him more conservative attention of the anti-war kind. To his credit he seized upon an opportunity in a very public forum, and that must have gotten him a lot of exposure that otherwise he would not have gotten most probably. Whereas neither Tancredo, nor Hunter, to my knowledge have been able to seize upon that kind of an opportunity thus far in the race.
But can this be said to account for all of the disparity between the interest in these candidates generated over the internet and the blogosphere? I had some additional thoughts on the matter that I posted in my latest comments to John's post, but as I said before, they just don't seem to me sufficient to account for the disparity.
I suppose if I were forced to give a specific answer I would likely say that the incident at the Republican debate probably sparked the interest in Paul, and that my thoughts over at John's blog probably account for the continued interest among conservative leaners throughout the blogosphere. But to be very honest, and to reiterate, I'm just really not sure whether that's an adequate enough explanation. I mean, Paul draws a lot of attention from folks I'd consider to be more than just 'conservative leaners.'
If any of you have any additional ideas on this question, please don't hesitate to put them in a comment here, or over at John's blog. This is a question that I've actually asked of myself on numerous occasions, but so far I've not been able to satisfy my own curiosity as to why this is, except in the way that I've already shared. Perhaps that's all there is to it; or perhaps that's not all there is to it and I'm missing something vital here. Maybe my thoughts are simply altogether wrong.
Whatever the case may be, or whatever you believe the case to be, please do let me know. More to come on some of these other items later...
-DW
"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." -Daniel Webster
Terry, as far as the appeal of Ron Paul to bloggers, I think you have to remember that blogging has been taken up disproportionately by young people. Young people don't tend to be traditionalists; even the right-leaning ones tend to be much more libertarian. Young people also tend to like Paul's principled, idealistic stands on many issues. I know that one post I did on Paul attracted an angry commenter who wrongly assumed I must be old because I was criticizing Paul for standing outside the mainstream in certain ways.
ReplyDeleteImmigration, which is Tancredo's signature issue, tends to be a concern of more people who are older, may be less well-off, and thus are less likely to have an Internet connection. Demographically, I probably don't fit the mold of a Tancredo supporter very well. I think it's very unfortunate that young people aren't more concerned about immigration, but I'm realistic about that.
I'd also add that bloggers tend to get into this business because of a feeling that their ideas aren't being heard in Washington. People who want far-reaching change are more likely to dedicate their time to blogging. Paul is viewed as an utterly transformative candidate, much like Barry Goldwater was. Tancredo and Hunter don't seem to seek that reputation as much. I imagine many of the Paul supporters started their blogs several years ago, already being dissatisfied with first-term Bush policies such as the Iraq War and increasing government spending. Tancredo's supporters may have come online only more recently, since many were relatively happy with Bush's presidency until the recent push for amnesty. Bloggers who are well-established have more influence, so they spread the Ron Paul passion quite easily. Tancredo's online supporters may be only finding each other at a fairly late date.
Those are just some thoughts.
This is a complicated question, and I'll try and be as direct and brief as possible.
ReplyDeleteBloggers are generally people who are against the status quo - it's why they started doing what they're doing in the first place. John's right about this "outsider" mentality.
Ron Paul fits that outsider role.
But across the blogosphere in general, I'd guess that most bloggers aren't really politically active if it means something other than blogging - this would be consistent with their view of themselves as outsiders (or their contempt of "mainstream" politics).
This is a self-defeating proposition, of course. If "outsider" were really interested in changing the status quo, they'd get actively involved in local politics and recruit like minded people to do the same. Eventually, they'd attain influence and with hard work could change the party. That's how real change occurs.
You know, I could be way off on that, upon re-reading. Just an impression I haven't been able to shake, not an indictment of anyone in partcular.
Boys, thanks very much for the comments! Like I implied, I ain't real savvy as to the demographic makeup of the blogosphere, so thanks to the both of you for educating me some on that. It's very helpful.
ReplyDeleteI hope we'll get some more comments on this question, and I'll keep checking John's blog for the same.
In the meantime...
-Terry