What makes a writer? Whether you’re a teenager pouring your heart into a journal or a cynical editorial writer, the personality type that must document with the written word is unique. Croupier, a 1998 Clive Owen film, captures the perspective of a writer. In one of my favorite scenes, Owen’s character, Jack, describes his desire to write while riding the Tube. (From the screenplay):

JACK stands, with an unlit cigarette, in a crowded moving train. He looks at the faces, MEN and WOMEN. He sees PEOPLE reading books. He looks at the TITLES: Romantic fiction, Classics, Business Management, Thrillers, Self-Help, Cooking….

JACK’S VOICE
Jack imagined people reading his book. One day he would enter their heads, play with their imaginations, test their feelings…

Writing to advocate for a cause or political writing is perhaps the height of playing with readers’ emotions and imaginations. Mary Pipher makes an interesting argument that writing can invoke social change in her book, Writing to Change the World. While the written word won’t feed hungry people or stop bullets, it can alter behaviors that make those changes. She writes from a solidly liberal perspective, but her book was informative and offered practical guidelines and suggestions on become a better advocacy writer. If you write for advocacy or political causes, professionally or not, I’d recommend it.

However, her book prompted more questions than answers for me, particularly about bias and perspective.

Even in her quest to be unbiased, Pipher’s liberal attitude showed through her writing. In one story, she shares how a friend from a writer’s group revealed that she was a Republican after the group had met for more than a year. Rather than just accept that her friend arrived at different political opinions than she did, Pipher had to justify the friend’s political persuasion by extraneous forces: the friend came from a “military family” and married a “very conservative man.” It wasn’t enough to simply accept that this woman had a different worldview.

Even Pipher’s examples show her inherent bias. Early on, she acknowledges that she’s tried to not be partisan, but her examples and sources reveal her preferences. She frequently rallies against the Patriot Act (which I agree with but wonder how she felt when that was reauthorized under a Democratic majority?) and uses environmental advocacy examples.

Her examples made me wonder how readers react when reading my blog.

My blog and Pipher’s book are two different mediums. By the title, you can tell what my opinions are going to be, and I never couch them under neutrality. Pipher’s book suggests a neutral tone. Is it possible to be neutral and objective? I used to think that it was, but I’m not so sure anymore.

So much feeds into our biases. The source of our news, our backgrounds, education, friends, interests and religious views. Dan Lehr, a blogger at the ABC-affiliate in Chattanooga, is constantly encouraging conservatives to be more open-minded and regularly sends me links via Twitter to David Frum columns. I usually laugh and tell him that only liberals take Frum seriously (as Red State explains, he’s a Polite Company Conservative. The worse kind. I used to be one and couldn’t handle it any longer.), but I understand his goal. In our media-saturated environment, liberals primarily use liberal sources (as evidenced by Pipher’s book), and conservatives only read conservative sources.

However, many of the comments I get from readers are ones telling me to not be so opinionated or self-assured. One of my favorite comments came when Washingtonian.com profiled me. A person commented, “Adrienne Royer has decided opinions and knows how to express them.”

For some reason that rankled me. As a 28-year-old woman, I grew up in a society that encouraged me to have decided opinions and find ways to express them. Just because my opinions differ from the accepted norm of the average 28-year-old woman, I’m not wrong or odd. I’m just acting on my Constitutional rights.  Had the Washingtonian.com profiled a liberal female blogger of the same age and demographic as me, would that person have felt the need to make such a statement?

Writing from the perspective of the persecuted minority often makes liberals uneasy. I accept that those ensconced in the advocacy or academic worlds rarely come across individuals like me, but I still have every right to articulate my opinions and argue for causes that are important.

Sometimes I do cross over the line. Reading the unintended bias in Pipher’s book made that realization much stronger. How easy it is for all of us to become lost in our little communities and lose perspective!

A while back, Shannon, a DC blogger, wrote that I was rude. Looking back, I agree with her. This year has been tough combination of seeing the Constitution shredded and witnessing Congress steamroll over the voices of the American people. Working for conservative causes and spending time with others in similar fields rarely gives you perspective. I didn’t realize how badly it had gotten until one of my former bosses sent a thoughtful email on a blog post I wrote about Al Gore.

This former boss regularly reads my blog and emails me his thoughts, and I always take note. He’s a liberal, but one of the few who has my utmost respect. Since he taught me advocacy writing, I pay attention when he critiques a blog post. He wrote:

Now, I do read your blog and I’ve been working on an e-mail for a number of days about your blog.  I think you should be proud of it and the recognition you’ve received for it and I recognize the value of a bit of red meat in building and holding an audience.  But from my perspective you sometimes veer too much into the trite and unimportant (Al Gore) and forget to focus on the conservative mission.  When you write serious columns about serious issues your writing really sings.  It may not be as acerbic nor as entertaining but it is really good stuff.  The e-mail I was working on was one in which I wanted to encourage you to focus more on promoting what you support than simply reacting to what you oppose.  You can be very persuasive when you take the time to write thoughtful pieces about what you believe.

My former boss was right. I had lost perspective and was reactive. While I still disagree with my alma mater’s decision, that email spawned contemplation on my writing.  Coming off of the health care issue, I was far too close to it and wired for attack. In the following weeks, I made an effort to read more news from outside of the conservative bubble, step away from the computer at a reasonable hour each night, read more books and pick up interests outside of the political world. To the enjoyment of my co-workers, I took a cake decorating class. While I’ll probably never call upon my skills with a pastry bag in a professional setting, the class forced me to use another part of my brain. I also tried to spend time with friends with opposing views or non-political circles, which can be hard in DC.

How many people who write, professionally or otherwise, on politics take a breather from the political world? How many people have friends and colleagues willing to call them out when they cross a line? After reading Pipher’s book, I wonder if she’s shut herself off completely into liberal-land? If a revelation that a friend is Republican shocks her, how fair can Pipher’s work be?

Pipher does offer extremely solid advice to the experienced and novice writer, and I would encourage aspiring writers or bloggers to read her book. After reading the email from my former boss, I preemptively  took up her charge to rest before hitting publish or send. Now, I try to wait at least a couple of hours before publishing a post. It sharpens my writing, gives me a better perspective on editing and forces me to ask, “Do I really want to enter this into the permanent archives of the interwebs?”

With the ability to instantly publish, far too many posts are written in seething rage. While this can sometimes be helpful, how many of us have written tweets, emails or comments that we later regret? I recently ran into trouble with the repercussions of sarcasm when a couple of snarky tweets were taken seriously.

While perspective is important, in order to be a strong writer, you must stick to your convictions. I shudder at the thought of being a Frum-esque blogger. I don’t want to be the token conservative that makes liberals feel open-minded. That’s why suggestions like Lehr’s always bother me. How often does Arianna Huffington, Al Gore, Markos Moulitsas or Matthew Yglesias think, “Am I being fair to conservatives? They also have valid points and are just as patriotic as me in expressing them.”

Somehow, I doubt that this happens, yet Lehr and other liberals expect conservatives to respond this way. It is possible be fair and write with conviction, and that’s the balance that I attempt to reach. Admittedly, conservatives use the crutch of “biased liberal media” far too often, which cheapens our writing.

Writing is difficult. No one ever arrives at a point of perfection in their work. Political writing is particularly tough because it always involves a precarious balance of short-term issues and alliances. You never know when something might change that casts a previously strong conviction into question.

Pipher’s book emphasizes what happens when you become too trapped in one side of the political spectrum. She took a great book and weakened it through her examples and sources. It wasn’t intentional, but it ultimately hurt her writing. It’s a good lesson for all of us.