Umm…have you ever tried contacting your representatives?
I did it just a few days ago, actually.
You seem to think it’s so easy to get them on the phone.
You contact them, not call them. I never said call, I said contact.
Let them know you’re watching, let them know your opinions on issues, let them know you’re engaged, and you’re not just mindless cattle that they can manipulate in whatever way they want. If we all do it, if they feel the ‘Eye of Sauron’ on them, they act differently.
All you have to do is use one of their online email forms. They even respond back, letting you know they registered your email on what subject you’re talking about. They track this stuff internally.
From the article that you linked…
Unlike call volume, the data on mail sent to Congress is public, and it suggests that, at least among the politically active, the U.S. Postal Service remains popular; the Senate alone received more than 6.4 million letters last year. Contrary to popular opinion, those written communications are an effective way of communicating with Congress, >>>as are their electronic kin<<<. “Everything is read, every call and voice mail is listened to,” Isaiah Akin, the deputy legislative director for Oregon’s Senator Ron Wyden, told me. “We don’t discriminate when it comes to phone versus e-mail versus letter.
So, even in the article you linked, even the aides of Representatives state that contacting them is effective in making them aware that they’re being seen by their constituency.
There’s a volume/ratio problem of citizens to a single representative, so of course theyir aides are going to triage the calls coming in.
If you have a serious problem, some legal or administrative issue with the government, you actually are able to get elevated past the aides and talk to your actual representative. That happens all the time to citizens here.
But again, what I’m advocating is contacting them, you don’t call, you email (which is actually easier for us citizens to do anyways). They usually even have a link on their website where you can just web email them directly.
Their aides are the only people receiving and sorting through those calls and emails and letters.
And what, the aides never talk to their senators or their representatives? They never track why people are calling? B.S., they do both.
You’re not being intellectually honest. No one ever said you get personal one-on-one meetings whenever you want, and it’s weird how you’re purposely trying to motivate people not to engage in the political system they live in. Almost like you have an agenda/motives of your own.
Edit: Have you actually read through that whole article you linked? It really makes my point.
This is just two of the many examples that the article documents…
On January 2nd, House Republicans voted in secret to defang the Office of Congressional Ethics; less than twenty-four hours later, following what seemed at the time like a deluge of calls but later turned out to be just that loud patter you hear on your window before the storm really begins, they reversed their decision.
On January 24th, Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, introduced a proposal to sell off 3.3 million acres of federal land. Barely a week later, on February 1st, he withdrew it, after getting an earful. “Groups I support and care about fear it sends the wrong message,” he explained. “I hear you and H.R. 621 dies tomorrow.”
Dude. I just think you’re being naive as fuck. An aide. Talking to the press. Of course they’re going to say, “oh yes, we take constituents’ opinions to heart.” Any time an election comes up, the politicians will always tell you how much they care. If an aide were saying to the press, “I take calls all day. But it’s a bunch of angry people, and it’s my job to basically absorb them and listen for any threats. I rarely get half a second to tell representative X about what I hear. And when I do, it’s not like it matters,” well…that just wouldn’t happen. Because it’s the fuckin press and an aide.
But you said you’ve seen the study as well! The data has shown that their votes are not influenced by constituents contacting them. And then you said while that’s true, it’s just because not enough constituents contact them. I showed you how that spiked during the trump years. But their votes didn’t change.
How often do they say in campaign speeches, “well, you know right before coming out here I was reminded of Shana O’Malley, a single mother of four…” They couldn’t give two microscopic fucks about that when it’s time to vote. But when it’s time to make themselves look good? Sure. That’s where it’s useful.
Now, maybe on some smaller issues that aren’t as politically important—and surely this depends on the election cycle, whether they have someone challenging them hugely in the polls, they will take constituent contact into consideration…for their own ends.
But look at Biden right now. He can’t stop arming Israel to the teeth. People aren’t happy—especially those who would be voting for him. And he is still doing it. This is an incredibly touchy issue. And people are beyond upset over it. But people’s opinions don’t matter. Lockheed’s opinions? Sure.
Now, again, to clarify a little, when you get down to local politics, yes, I believe there can be some impact from contacting them. Also, when a freshman politician is trying to govern according to their values, they will take constituents opinions into consideration. There are instances in which I do believe it can have an impact.
But on the whole, you yourself have seen the study that shows that it doesn’t have a measurable effect on the way they govern. And you’re still arguing that it does, that it’s just not enough of us doing it. It’s nice you’re so idealistic about our political landscape. Maybe you’re young, I dunno. But it just feels like you’re being foolishly optimistic, with the data in your face refuting your point, and you’re still saying, “yeah, but…”
Dude. I just think you’re being naive as fuck. An aide. Talking to the press. Of course they’re going to say, “oh yes, we take constituents’ opinions to heart.”
Its from your article, dude. Can’t pick-and-choose what you want out of it, especially since you supplied it.
But on the whole, you yourself have seen the study that shows that it doesn’t have a measurable effect on the way they govern.
It does when enough of us do it.
You want to advocate for a better alternative? I’m all ears. …
I wasn’t trying to ignore something in the article. I was calling into question your naïveté for taking what some representative’s 20-something year old aide is saying to the press as proof that your point somehow had been proven.
It does when enough of us do it
[Citation Needed], right?
Got a better alternative? Yeah. Praxis. Direct action in your community to directly benefit those in need around you.
Vote, sure. Especially when trying to keep fascists from the door. But don’t expect inside the box, paint by numbers, establishment solutions to really have a true effect on a broken system. It’s broken for a reason.
But don’t expect inside the box, paint by numbers, establishment solutions to really have a true effect on a broken system.
No one is advocating holding hands and singing Kumbaya and everything magically starts working again perfectly.
It’s broken for a reason.
It’s broken for a reason, because we let elected officials get away with breaking it. Everyone sits on their ass and just make Lemmy comments. That does nothing to police the elected officials.
The system truly is designed to work when we all participate in it (also known as voting the assholes out of office, even with jerrymanding), and it’s hard for it not to work if you have full participation.
Got a better alternative? Yeah. Praxis.
Elaborate? Honestly asking.
Edit: Have you actually read through that whole article you linked? It really makes my point.
This is just two of the many examples that the article documents…
On January 2nd, House Republicans voted in secret to defang the Office of Congressional Ethics; less than twenty-four hours later, following what seemed at the time like a deluge of calls but later turned out to be just that loud patter you hear on your window before the storm really begins, they reversed their decision.
On January 24th, Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, introduced a proposal to sell off 3.3 million acres of federal land. Barely a week later, on February 1st, he withdrew it, after getting an earful. “Groups I support and care about fear it sends the wrong message,” he explained. “I hear you and H.R. 621 dies tomorrow.”
Again, I just feel like you’re being naive. And fuckin Chaffetz? That piece of shit? You think he gave half a fuck about what his voters had to say? He famously shut them out and hid from them, didn’t he? I don’t feel like searching that putz’s name. And he even said himself that it was “groups” that made him change his mind. That wasn’t citizen’s groups. That was interest groups.
But yes, I agree, let’s move on to something positive. Praxis is the concept among anarchists/socialists of smaller scale, direct action. You get a group of likeminded people together and go provide direct aid. FoodNotBombs is probably the most famous example. Instead of putting a bunch of effort into trying to change the minds of politicians and rallying likeminded people to put pressure on them to cast their vote to build a program that would, after being rewritten and amended and lobbied, amount to far less than anyone wanted and is thought of as a “step in the right direction.” It’s incrementalism. And all of that effort and time gets wasted.
Our entire concept of success in politics centers around incrementalism, and it’s led us down the exact path we’ve been on and has moved slower than the negative progress of the world changing for the worse under capitalism. Problems will always continue to mount faster than incrementalism will ever be able to put a dent into. But praxis is living your values directly. Believe in helping people? Help people. Don’t put all of your time and effort and resources into trying to get selfish motherfuckers that have only their own interests and the interests of those with money at heart to help people. In practice, any effort in trying to get politicians to help people only ends up helping the politicians.
Take all that time and effort and those resources and give them directly to the people who need it. That is praxis. And even though it’s on a smaller scale, the idea is that if everyone did this, the scale suddenly turns from local solutions to global ones. It’s a founding principle of anarchism.
I can give you some good books to read on the subject if you’re interested.
I can give you some good books to read on the subject if you’re interested.
Thank you for the education. If you want to suggest any books please do so, I would honestly be interested in reading more about it.
As far as the other part of your comment, the first thing that jumped in my mind is “Why does it have to be an either/or thing?” One can attack the problem from both ends, and have a better chance of success.
With respect, I honestly believe my approach can affect positive change, it’s not either a 0% failure or a 100% success, with nothing in between, as you suggest. I don’t believe I’m being naive, it’s just I’ve seen it work effectively in the past, as that article you linked aptly shows, by describing examples of such.
If nothing else, where we’re at now is because of apathy. Apathy has proven itself to be not be effective to affect positive change. To advocate for involvement in the system is not a waste of time.
Based on your description, what you advocate for is a positive change. But it seems too micro of a change to really ‘move the ball down the field’, to borrow a phrase. To be fair though, I know very little about it at this point, so I may end up having to change my mind about that once I’m more educated about it.
Finally, I would challenge you though to not give up on engaging in the current system, if you’re willing to think outside of your box, as I am of mine.
I did it just a few days ago, actually.
You contact them, not call them. I never said call, I said contact.
Let them know you’re watching, let them know your opinions on issues, let them know you’re engaged, and you’re not just mindless cattle that they can manipulate in whatever way they want. If we all do it, if they feel the ‘Eye of Sauron’ on them, they act differently.
All you have to do is use one of their online email forms. They even respond back, letting you know they registered your email on what subject you’re talking about. They track this stuff internally.
From the article that you linked…
So, even in the article you linked, even the aides of Representatives state that contacting them is effective in making them aware that they’re being seen by their constituency.
There’s a volume/ratio problem of citizens to a single representative, so of course theyir aides are going to triage the calls coming in.
If you have a serious problem, some legal or administrative issue with the government, you actually are able to get elevated past the aides and talk to your actual representative. That happens all the time to citizens here.
But again, what I’m advocating is contacting them, you don’t call, you email (which is actually easier for us citizens to do anyways). They usually even have a link on their website where you can just web email them directly.
And what, the aides never talk to their senators or their representatives? They never track why people are calling? B.S., they do both.
You’re not being intellectually honest. No one ever said you get personal one-on-one meetings whenever you want, and it’s weird how you’re purposely trying to motivate people not to engage in the political system they live in. Almost like you have an agenda/motives of your own.
Edit: Have you actually read through that whole article you linked? It really makes my point.
This is just two of the many examples that the article documents…
Dude. I just think you’re being naive as fuck. An aide. Talking to the press. Of course they’re going to say, “oh yes, we take constituents’ opinions to heart.” Any time an election comes up, the politicians will always tell you how much they care. If an aide were saying to the press, “I take calls all day. But it’s a bunch of angry people, and it’s my job to basically absorb them and listen for any threats. I rarely get half a second to tell representative X about what I hear. And when I do, it’s not like it matters,” well…that just wouldn’t happen. Because it’s the fuckin press and an aide.
But you said you’ve seen the study as well! The data has shown that their votes are not influenced by constituents contacting them. And then you said while that’s true, it’s just because not enough constituents contact them. I showed you how that spiked during the trump years. But their votes didn’t change.
How often do they say in campaign speeches, “well, you know right before coming out here I was reminded of Shana O’Malley, a single mother of four…” They couldn’t give two microscopic fucks about that when it’s time to vote. But when it’s time to make themselves look good? Sure. That’s where it’s useful.
Now, maybe on some smaller issues that aren’t as politically important—and surely this depends on the election cycle, whether they have someone challenging them hugely in the polls, they will take constituent contact into consideration…for their own ends.
But look at Biden right now. He can’t stop arming Israel to the teeth. People aren’t happy—especially those who would be voting for him. And he is still doing it. This is an incredibly touchy issue. And people are beyond upset over it. But people’s opinions don’t matter. Lockheed’s opinions? Sure.
Now, again, to clarify a little, when you get down to local politics, yes, I believe there can be some impact from contacting them. Also, when a freshman politician is trying to govern according to their values, they will take constituents opinions into consideration. There are instances in which I do believe it can have an impact.
But on the whole, you yourself have seen the study that shows that it doesn’t have a measurable effect on the way they govern. And you’re still arguing that it does, that it’s just not enough of us doing it. It’s nice you’re so idealistic about our political landscape. Maybe you’re young, I dunno. But it just feels like you’re being foolishly optimistic, with the data in your face refuting your point, and you’re still saying, “yeah, but…”
Its from your article, dude. Can’t pick-and-choose what you want out of it, especially since you supplied it.
It does when enough of us do it.
You want to advocate for a better alternative? I’m all ears. …
What.
I wasn’t trying to ignore something in the article. I was calling into question your naïveté for taking what some representative’s 20-something year old aide is saying to the press as proof that your point somehow had been proven.
[Citation Needed], right?
Got a better alternative? Yeah. Praxis. Direct action in your community to directly benefit those in need around you.
Vote, sure. Especially when trying to keep fascists from the door. But don’t expect inside the box, paint by numbers, establishment solutions to really have a true effect on a broken system. It’s broken for a reason.
No one is advocating holding hands and singing Kumbaya and everything magically starts working again perfectly.
It’s broken for a reason, because we let elected officials get away with breaking it. Everyone sits on their ass and just make Lemmy comments. That does nothing to police the elected officials.
The system truly is designed to work when we all participate in it (also known as voting the assholes out of office, even with jerrymanding), and it’s hard for it not to work if you have full participation.
Elaborate? Honestly asking.
Edit: Have you actually read through that whole article you linked? It really makes my point.
This is just two of the many examples that the article documents…
Again, I just feel like you’re being naive. And fuckin Chaffetz? That piece of shit? You think he gave half a fuck about what his voters had to say? He famously shut them out and hid from them, didn’t he? I don’t feel like searching that putz’s name. And he even said himself that it was “groups” that made him change his mind. That wasn’t citizen’s groups. That was interest groups.
But yes, I agree, let’s move on to something positive. Praxis is the concept among anarchists/socialists of smaller scale, direct action. You get a group of likeminded people together and go provide direct aid. FoodNotBombs is probably the most famous example. Instead of putting a bunch of effort into trying to change the minds of politicians and rallying likeminded people to put pressure on them to cast their vote to build a program that would, after being rewritten and amended and lobbied, amount to far less than anyone wanted and is thought of as a “step in the right direction.” It’s incrementalism. And all of that effort and time gets wasted.
Our entire concept of success in politics centers around incrementalism, and it’s led us down the exact path we’ve been on and has moved slower than the negative progress of the world changing for the worse under capitalism. Problems will always continue to mount faster than incrementalism will ever be able to put a dent into. But praxis is living your values directly. Believe in helping people? Help people. Don’t put all of your time and effort and resources into trying to get selfish motherfuckers that have only their own interests and the interests of those with money at heart to help people. In practice, any effort in trying to get politicians to help people only ends up helping the politicians.
Take all that time and effort and those resources and give them directly to the people who need it. That is praxis. And even though it’s on a smaller scale, the idea is that if everyone did this, the scale suddenly turns from local solutions to global ones. It’s a founding principle of anarchism.
I can give you some good books to read on the subject if you’re interested.
Thank you for the education. If you want to suggest any books please do so, I would honestly be interested in reading more about it.
As far as the other part of your comment, the first thing that jumped in my mind is “Why does it have to be an either/or thing?” One can attack the problem from both ends, and have a better chance of success.
With respect, I honestly believe my approach can affect positive change, it’s not either a 0% failure or a 100% success, with nothing in between, as you suggest. I don’t believe I’m being naive, it’s just I’ve seen it work effectively in the past, as that article you linked aptly shows, by describing examples of such.
If nothing else, where we’re at now is because of apathy. Apathy has proven itself to be not be effective to affect positive change. To advocate for involvement in the system is not a waste of time.
Based on your description, what you advocate for is a positive change. But it seems too micro of a change to really ‘move the ball down the field’, to borrow a phrase. To be fair though, I know very little about it at this point, so I may end up having to change my mind about that once I’m more educated about it.
Finally, I would challenge you though to not give up on engaging in the current system, if you’re willing to think outside of your box, as I am of mine.
Otherwise, apathy will destroy us all.