At PJ Media we preach to the choir quite a bit.
It’s not our fault for the most part. It’s the way of the world these days. The Left talks to the Left and the Right talks to the Right.
Sure we have some internal differences (gay marriage is one area), but PJM writers and readers largely agree on the big issues of the economy (stop spending), size of government (less is more), and, mostly anyway, on foreign policy (be strong).
The vast majority of people reading this article will vote for Romney, some grumpily, some not.
In sum, we’re preaching to the choir, albeit a somewhat fractious one.
So we’re not changing anyone’s mind — or hardly anyone. At best we’re giving people arguments and nuggets of information with which to regale their liberal friends at the water cooler, ammunition for a possible conversion or two. We’re also deepening our readers’ understanding of the issues and, we hope, entertaining them a bit.
Nothing wrong with any of that but, alas, it doesn’t move the meter much. And in this election year — universally acknowledged the most important since the invention of the secret ballot or maybe since drawing straws — we’d like to do better than that.
The question is how. Should we engage liberals in respectful discussion? Back in the early days of PJ Media, we attempted to do just that. It didn’t last long. Neither side “worked or played well with others,” as it used to say on our grammar school report cards, though I like to think it was the libs that were the more dysfunctional.
What you see now in mainstream media is a form of faux opposition installed for appearance’s sake or, even more, entertainment value (like Bob Beckel on Fox or, let’s be honest, David Brooks in the New York Times).
We don’t have any faux opposition on PJM, not that we want that. What we really want is a way to get our message out to the other side so that they actually read and consider it.