Just yesterday, I was worried about the ineffectiveness of blogging as a way to accomplish anything. But I thought it over, and then this morning I saw a post by Say Uncle titled "Is Blogging Activism?:

Gunner, in a must read post, figures he spends more time uncovering piles of dog shit than actually cleaning up the dog shit.

Does blogging lead to less activism?

Done properly, blogging can improve and streamline all of these activities, and can reach far more people. The people reached may be precisely the right people too; if a blogger complains about, say, a "pile of dog shit," and an activist reads about it and goes out and cleans it up, that blogger has accomplished something possibly more important than if he'd cleaned up the pile himself.

As I was writing this in a comment to Say Uncle's post, it occurred to me that it might be important enought to be a post in itself, so, with thanks to him for helping me think my way out of yesterday's temporary despair, here it is.

There's another advantage blogging has over conventional activism alone: activists get generally (often hysterically) pissed off when their conventional approaches fail. A feeling of gloom sets in -- characterized by an all-consuming feeling that "no one is listening," "the system" is rigged, etc. Blogging's unique ability to allow interaction with similarly-situated thinkers all over the United States -- indeed, all over the world -- has a way of lifting this gloom in a way that nothing else can. This is especially true in situations where activists are outgunned and outnumbered. I cannot count the number of times I've been ignored and discounted, dismissed as a crank or an activist -- you name it. Try, for example, fighting gun control in San Francisco; I was called a "lobbyist" simply for belonging to the NRA (as if membership in an organization discredits what I believe in). My one-man "lobbying" effort to get a presidential pardon for the hated G. Gordon Liddy was a perfect example, and I developed thicker calluses than most people could dream of having (no small accomplishment for a highly sensitive, anxiety-prone person, I assure you). There was no blogging back in those days, and I wish there had been.

On top of all that, blogging forces activists to be honest, which is good for everyone. People are free to dismiss me as a "lobbyist for the NRA," and I am free to respond. Instead of sending letters to the editor and waiting and hoping they'll be published, I can say what I think right here and now. Or, I can both send the letter to the editor and put it in my blog, following which I can question the motives of the paper which refused to print it.

Blogging also provides a way for people who hate activists (and who'd never want to be activists) to, well, be activists! Many people are either shy or agoraphobic, and would never attend a demonstration, wave a sign, or even write letters to the editor. Some of them may fear retaliation for making their views known. Far from decreasing activism, blogging allows non-activists to actually become activists -- minus the pain that "traditional activism" often causes.

Furthermore, at the risk sounding contradictory, blogging allows people who hate activists to strike back against them. When I was on Berkeley's Police Review Commission I was beseiged by often-violent activists who demanded I do their bidding, and I felt like a cornered animal. Had there been such a thing as blogging back then, I could have told the world. (Of course, telling the world would have been just another form of activism.)

So, no; I do not think blogging decreases activism. It increases it, in many ways, both subtle and not so subtle.

As Gunner says,

Start small. Perform miracles.

It sure beats being inactive!