I recently emailed my senators about the Kavanaugh hearing and my hope that they would vote for the judge. The one that replied did so with a compilation of boilerplate paragraphs that were nothing more than the talking points that he had used before the hearing began. Beyond the fact that the form paragraphs each related to the Kavanaugh nomination, there was no direct response to the specific points raised in my email.
Why do we accept these sorts of form responses? We pay the salaries of our elected officials; they represent all of their constituents whether or not an individual constituent voted for them or not. Our representatives have an obligation to listen to us (for without listening, how can they represent us?). Rather than just send us the pre-made talking points on whatever issue we are writing about, they should respond to us in a way that indicates that they actually read our correspondence and respond to that rather than just reading the subject line and sending the appropriate form.
Whether our elected official agrees or disagrees with our position on a particular issue, we are entitled to a thoughtful individual response to our correspondence. But unless we demand that, we will continue to write letters that may or may not be read and then receive generic responses to our letters. It amounts to a tacit approval on our part that our officials go about doing what they want to do rather than representing the wishes of those who elected them.
Do they not understand that we are capable of finding their talking points without sending a personal correspondence? I think that most people write to their elected representative in an attempt to share their individual view on an issue and perhaps to try to persuade that representative to take a particular action on an issue. It is an attempt to have a dialog with someone who has been elected to consider the views of all the individuals within his or her constituency. One would hope that the response would reflect that the representative had some interest in that – some interest in hearing constituents’ thoughts and responding to them. That does not mean that the constituent should expect the representative to take the constituent’s position, but it does mean that the representative should listen to that position and, as in any dialog, even a written one, the constituent should be able to expect a response to what was specifically said, including perhaps an explanation (beyond talking points) of why the representative will not adopt the constituent’s position.
When I received my most recent reply, I was inclined to think, “well, typical” and consider that the end of it. But, instead of accepting this as I usually do, I replied, asking if the senator had even listened to the hearings and, then, once again making my points. We will see what, if any, response I get. I plan to continue writing to this elected official, my elected representative, until I receive something more than a form letter response. I hope to eventually get some indication that he actually read my letter/listened to my thoughts.
I do not think that it is too much to ask that an elected official listens to his or her constituents, for, without listening how then can they actually represent us? A reply that is specifically responsive to a constituent’s piece of correspondence and the specific concerns raised therein is some indication that the official has listened and, if the representative actually does listen to all of his or her constituents then those constituents are more likely to be represented by that official. I think it is reasonable for we who pay their salaries to demand this of our elected officials, and I hope that we all begin to do so.
It is only when our officials listen to us that can they represent us. That is their job. We should all demand nothing less than that they do their jobs.
No comments:
Post a Comment