Ms. Meinhardt asks, "You know those pesky activist types (hey– I’m one of them, I’m allowed to say that) that come into ASCMC Senate meetings and ask for money for letter writing materials?" Well, actually, I don't, which is surprising since I have been a member of the ASCMC Senate for all of my three semesters here at CMC. This is even more surprising when you take into account that I have worked with the
Ms Meinhardt's main point, however, is: "When a person contacts a congressperson, whether it be by letter (the physical piece of paper that someone had to pay the postage on), phone call, or email– they are tallied in the same fashion." If they are tallied in the same fashion, writing a letter, which takes more time and money, is just a waste of time. Unfortunately, the assertion is based only on Ms. Meinhardt's experience in Senator Russ Feingold's office. While her experience is surely useful and shows that letters to Senator Feingold's office may be more wasteful than e-mail, one Senator's practices do not necessarily apply to the entire Senate.
As Rebecca Fairley Raney Points out in her 2001 article on email and Congress ("E-mail Finds the Rare Ear in Congress"), emails, being much easier and less expensive to send, pour into Congressional offices in huge numbers. The article may be dated, but it still highlights the sheer volume of e-mail that Congress receives (I doubt the volume has gone down, considering the increase in internet access) and the difficulties associated with it. Thus there is some advantage in letter-writing. Few offices can handle the number of e-mails and respond to each of them in any sort of reasonable manner. In her article, Ms. Raney points out "The ease with which e-mail can be sent and the push by advocacy groups for supporters to send e-mail to Congress have raised the public's expectation of being heard, the study said. Instead, the report concluded, the ''conflicting practices and expectations of all the parties are fostering cynicism and eroding trust.''
The article also notes, "Larry Neal, deputy chief of staff for Senator Phil Gramm, Republican of Texas, wrote, 'The communication that Sen. Gramm values most certainly does not arrive by wire. It is the one where someone sat down at a kitchen table, got a sheet of lined paper and a No. 2 pencil, and poured their heart into a letter.'"
Perhaps most strikingly, "Jonah Seiger, co-founder of Mindshare Internet Campaigns, which designs online communication strategies for trade associations, nonprofit groups and corporations, said he had not advised any of his clients to lobby via e-mail."
The most important part of a letter writing campaign is captured very well by Ms. Raney: "The objective of any campaign, he said, is to create a tangible sense of pressure within a Congressional office through ringing telephones, bulging mail bags and humming fax machines. E-mail silently accumulating in an inbox does not create that pressure."
This might be the most important. Many letter writing campaigns are directed toward non-democratic regimes, not only the U.S. Congress. They need to be confronted with the "tangible sense of pressure." This method has proven its effectiveness. Just take a look at the history of Amnesty International.
Senator Feingold's practices sound noble and democratic, and I wish all Senators took such a democratic standard with constituency correspondence. It sure would make my activism much easier. Until I can be assured of its effectiveness, however, I will continue to supplement my keyboard with my pen. And if anyone is interested in supporting Amnesty International, come out to the Motley tomorrow (Tuesday, December 11th) at
4 comments:
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Clifford. To assert that all letter-writing is futile or "tallied in the same fashion [as email]" and therefore a waste of time based on Ms. Meinhardt's single experience is ill-considered on her part. I know for certain that other senators do weigh written letters more than their electronic counterparts. I echo Mr. Clifford's opinion and applaud Senator Feingold's democratic treatment of correspondence, but as long as there are politicians who weigh written letters more, I too will continue to pen letters.
Let's say that a bunch of activists DO write letters (despite my disapproval). The letters make their way to a congressman's office-- to someone other than the Honorable Russell D. Feingold. A staffer opens the letters and notes the overwhelming number of letters on a particular issue. The staffer opening the mail (almost always low level) MIGHT mention it to a senior staffer. Maybe, just maybe, that comment will be passed along to the big guy himself (who is rarely in the office anyway). Now let's consider what happens with that information. Chances are the congressman knows his district very well and could easily have guessed where a bunch of college students stand on an issue. Chances are...the congressman knew how he was going to vote before the letters. In sum, the total effect that the letters had on legislative policy is negligible. Letter writing campaigns remain an inefficient way of achieving change. I will admit, letter writing is an inherently positive, noble activity-- but effective? I think not. While people are dying in the Sudan or Burma keeps jailing or killing protesters, we need urgent, efficient, and meaningful action of a different form.
So what do you suggest, Ms. Meinhardt, we should do to voice our discontent with laws on honor crimes in Jordan, the raping of women by the militia in Colombia, or the death threats against trade union leaders in Colombia?
The truth is, there is very little we can do to convince politicians to do or not do something. As Ms. Meinhardt correctly pointed out, politicians are already decided on the way they will vote. Having said that, writing letters to voice our opinion, to make them aware of our discontent is the least we CAN do. Surely, as a citizen of the United States, a country which prides itself for its constitution and rights granted by it, you do not think that it is not a worthy task to voice discontent.
Multiple emails can be deleted with a click. Letters must be opened, read, and filed. While it may seem very silly, that extra exertion is likely to be more effective in conveying the writers' indignation and concern. That's what we, letter-writers are aiming for-- to best convey our regret and rage.
When you can come up with a more effective way, please do let us know. Meanwhile, the rest of us will do what we can do express our desire for progressive change.
VOTE.
Post a Comment