OT: For U.S. Citizens: Emailing the President

[Bloomfield]

Hello everyone. I havent had a reliable internet conn for a while, and as soon as I could borrow a computer, I headed here.

Just a few thoughts on the e-mail policy.

-Even with a user-friendly system, did anyone actually think the president reads the things?

-It helps them categorize the received mail to get a better picture of public opinion without having to skim every single one.

-Maybe it will save the government money by drastically reducing the load on the e-mail system.

-Democracy still worked before the internet was invented. If you want to make your voice heard, then vote and be sure to punch it all the way through.

-I GENERALLY agree with the current president, and I also think Weekender has made some good points.

Have a nice day

antstastegood

One of the things I have always appreciated about the American democracy is the role and importance of immediate and continued participation. This was the hallmark of the American democracy that de Tocqueville observed (does anyone still read that?). I don't know of a European country in which people are as willing to call their senators, their representatives. I can't conceive the level of public interest in the minute details of the Iran-Contra hearings and how practically everyone watched North's testimony and discussed. It was on the soaps. I think that the Americans are as ready to elect a buffoon to political office as the Germans, Italians, or French. But the American voters are much more involved with their elected officials during their terms of office. They really care and they have always demanded that they be heard.

I hope that the American voters are aware of their proud tradition in this respect and that they keep demanding that the president and other officials pay attention to what they have to say (and not regard their communications as statistical polling tools). I hope they will resist any attempt of politicians to remove themselves further from the voters and constituents.

(And it doesn't matter that the president doesn't read the email himself. He doesn't read all the snail mail either. (why not require and APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL mark on snail mail envelopes if you agree with the new email policy?))

As for the cost: Democracy has become too expensive? Why do we bother exporting it to cheap and efficient dictatorships? (ok, I'm getting silly here). Three more Whitehouse aides and the USA budget is what? Cost is just a cop-out, an apologtical argument, in my opinion.

(on a purely personal note, and I say this unguardedly: it leaves such a bad taste in my mouth that the Whitehouse is couching this cheap advertising language: It's an "enhancement" to be more "responsive" for "real-time access". But don't yell at me for this, please.)

[jim stone]

Do you think they can deal with over 100,000 e mails
a week, every week, plus heaven knows how much
snail mail? Suppose it comes to 20,000 messages a day,
including weekends. My wife, who is omniscient,
says this would take 100 employees devoted to
nothing else. Well suppose it's only 75.

You know, this was presented as 'Here it is. Let's protest'
Well, it may well be a bad idea, doubly clumsy in its
inception--but the assumption that it is seems to me
worth considering. Especially the assumption that
the government is trying to distance itself from
the people. Isn't there a real possibility that this
is a rather desperate attempt at the opposite? Best

[Chuck_Clark]

The US two party system is something I have pondered for a long while. It seems that it is because of our diversity of opinions that we are channelled into two big ones, while societies that have larger pluralities in terms of culture, not necessarily color, like some of the smaller European nations, have a profusion of parties and mechanisms for dealing with those coalitions. It almost seems counter-intuitive that we have only two very major parties here, though Greens and Libertarian do field occasional candidates.

I really thought for a while that abortion, like abolition a century previous, would destroy one of the two parties and during the Perot period, I also thought there was a chance one party would tank. Didn't happen though.

Some of us only THINK we have a two-party system. The truth comes out whenever anyone makes a serious attempt to form a real third party, such as Ross Perot or, as many have forgotten, John Anderson. Then the two wings of the republicrat hegemony unite in righteous wrath to crush the interloper. Once they've figuratively killed and eaten the intruder, they return to yapping viciously at each other.

Personally, I think our imperiled Republic would be in far safer hands with a true European-style multi-party system where the winner still needed to cooperate with at least one other party to rule. If we did, I don't believe we'd yaw so violently back and forth between a welfare state and one that actively hates the poor.

I have the misfortune to live in Illinois, where the REPUBLIcrats have ruled for the last quarter-century, before descending so far into graft and corruption that the republiCRATS won this time. Now all the patronage hogs have been driven from the trough (to make room for a different herd of patronage hogs, of course) and it comes out that the only thing able to whine louder than a left wing republicrat is a right wing republicrat.

[Jerry Freeman]

Great post, Chuck.

[Dale]

Isn't there a real possibility that this
is a rather desperate attempt at the opposite? Best

You bet.

[chas]

Some of us only THINK we have a two-party system. The truth comes out whenever anyone makes a serious attempt to form a real third party, such as Ross Perot or, as many have forgotten, John Anderson. Then the two wings of the republicrat hegemony unite in righteous wrath to crush the interloper. Once they've figuratively killed and eaten the intruder, they return to yapping viciously at each other.

First, I want to say how much I like Bloo's post. I was once talking to a German colleague who said something in much the same vein. He pointed out how, in Germany, the smallest legislative unit was much bigger than in the States and how great he thought our Federal/state/county/(some places) town system is.

Chuck, my problem is that it's pretty much the media who decide who's a viable candidate. Ross Perot bought his way into the media. He had a message that resonated with the people, but so could many other candidates if the media would just give them a forum. The best Presidential candidatedebate I ever saw was one between Andre Marrou, the libertarian candidate in 1992, and a woman whose name I can't remember (I wanna say Folani or Furlani) of a party I can't remember, but one representing urban blacks. The debate was on CSpan; these were thinking people with real ideas who treated each other with respect, and I think they each could have gotten 20 times as many votes if the media would just pay attention.

I've only voted for a major-party presidential candidate once, and unless something in the parties changes, I won't for awhile. I think Anderson and Marrou are the two best candidates since I've been voting. (Just about every person I knew in 1980 said "I'd vote for Anderson, but he doesn't have a chance." If everybody who said that voted for him, he WOULD have had a chance.) The Libertarians have pulled in close to or more than a million votes in presidential elections every year since the mid-seventies, but the mainstream media still pay no attention.

The networks for awhile not only refused to cover third-party candidates, but to boot, made all the results on election night add up to 100% for the two major parties. Imagine their surprise when Socialist Bernie Sanders won in Vermont, but he wasn't even in their results, and the two other guys somehow managed to get 100% of the vote. That's when the practice stopped, I think.

[Jerry Freeman]

There are also features built into the electoral process that overwhelmingly favor incumbents and members of the two major parties. Of course, it would be so, since it's the incumbents who write the laws.

[The Weekenders]

Re Bloomfield's latest:

Well, watch California now for some bruising involvement and citizen scrutiny. This recall effort has swept powerfully and now many are considering runs exactly because they think they can sidestep the usual year or more long campaign trail (and cost) and create some monumental media blitzkrieg. Consequently, some interesting characters are emerging and poli. science/pr types would do well to study us in the next three months.

The recall vote takes place October 7. You are asked to vote for or against the recall then you select a replacement candidate. Filing deadline is in TWO weeks. Heck, you can just "feel" the scurrying about and its kind of funny.

As nutty as this state is and has always been really since about 1850, this is an adrenaline pumper.

No matter what you may hear in the media about right-wing this or that, the people of this state really got POed at Gray Davis and this is the result.

I first heard of the recall effort being floated from within the Democrat Party here. Fairly drunk with power, THEY were disgusted and embarassed with the guy. We have had an all Democrat-controlled Senate, Assembly and Governor for about four years and we have the deficit, increased state government hires, very disappointed school administrations and hand-wringing to prove it. For years, we had a mostly Democrat Legislative majority with a usually unexciting SoCal Republican governor type whose vetoes perhaps gave some sense of balance to things, punctuated by periodic Proposition chaos....

I believe in counter-balances, no matter how frustrating it seems at times. I learned it here.

[jim stone]

Common Arnie! Da Terminator!

[ErikT]

I'm obviously coming in late here... and should know better to than to jump into a political discussion. I do have a couple of comments that I've amassed over the last 6 pages of material.

First, there is nothing wrong with Censure. Censure is when someone disagrees with someone else and says so. This is what happened to the Dixie Chicks. That isn't Censorship. It is Censure. The Chicks have a right to talk and others have a right to say that they’re wrong.

Jon wrote: "but because an insidious and intolerant idea is being introduced into public discourse that unless loudly, vigorously, and publicly refuted as being outside the pale by people of all political persuasions might work its way into the realm of unconscious assumptions"

What you're talking about is Censure. Sure, if you can get enough people behind you, this type of thing can be put down... but you had just complained about the conservatives silencing the liberals. Which is it? Do we silence people or let them speak. It doesn't work to say, "Well, let's silence only those that we disagree with." That's like being tolerant of everybody but THEM. That doesn't sound like tolerance to me. (Which is fine, but let’s at least admit it. I’m a proud intolerant. In reality we’re all intolerant - it’s just a matter of who or what and whether or not we want to admit it).

Now, I don't even know who Couter is. I don't find Rush funny, just mean. And while I like O'Reilly's material, I find him a bit belligerent. Like politicians, these folks have a hook or bit of theater that drives their demeanor and most often their demeanor lacks greatly in love and respect (which is not the same thing as tolerance, btw). Even if I agree with much of their politics, I often find that they give rise to deamonization of the opposing opinion based upon rhetoric or name-calling rather than truth. I'm OK with deamonization, but lets at least do it on a non-emotional level

Just some stats for you Conservative = Big Business, Democrat = Grassroots folks:

"As Ronald Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times reports, "Democrats raised as much or more than Republicans in 2002 only among the largest donors. Democrats attracted 92 percent of the money from the 23 donors who contributed at least $1 million. ... By contrast, Republicans dominated among smaller and mid-sized donors. The GOP garnered 64 percent of the total contributions from those who gave less than $200 and 61 percent from those who donated between $200 and $999." http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen070403.asp

Personally, while I tend to vote conservatively, I am an independent. I’m not particularly fond of labels and that tends to help me avoid some. I’ve often relied upon George Washington’s farewell address: "Beware of foreign alliances and political parties." (paraphrase) No one listened to him.

Erik

[Jon-M]

No, I'm not talking about censure, I'm talking about censorship, not of their political opinions but of their ability to make a living (not that the Dixie Chicks are hurting for cash, of course). Yes, anyone has a right to say that they are wrong, but their livelihood was attacked when they were taken off the air. The same tactic was used to intimidate people during the McCarthy era: the HUAC didn't have to punish anyone for refusing to rat out friends who might have been communists 20 years earlier; Hollywood would blacklist them or their universities would fire them if they dared exercise their constitutional privileges and take the Fifth Amendment. So, yes, this kind of activity is a tool of repression.
Now, one thing I've noticed about you conservatives is that you like to play offense: not one of the points that I've made about conservativism has been substantively responded to, so I'm going to have another shot at it. A lot of this hoopla started because I called George W. Bush a villain; let me add to that the word "hypocrite." Let me quote from yesterday's New York Times:
"When the slight to the neediest first became clear six weeks ago, the White House claimed that the president wanted Congress to quickly repair the damage so 6.5 million poor families could share in the benefit. Since then Mr. Bush has made no obvious effort to broker a solution between House and Senate Republican leaders who seem intent on a stalemate more than a solution. Their "compromise" proposals would include outrageous extra helpings of child credits for Americans earning more than $150,000 a year. This would add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit.

Only the president has the clout to engineer a true, less costly solution in the days remaining before Congress's summer recess. There are 12 million deserving children in poor families that are far more likely than the affluent to immediately spend the money in the economic stimulus Mr. Bush has been promising. As the Republican government's priorities become ever clearer, the status of the nation's poorest children is a prime litmus test for the G.O.P. vows of compassion.

In another crucial measure, Congress is proposing to tighten requirements for workers receiving temporary welfare aid — mandating 40 hours of work from them rather the current 30. This means a parent will need more child-care aid in order to be free for the required low-wage job. Some 350,000 impoverished children will likely be denied care in the next five years. No help is in the offing as the Republicans shrink the federal revenue flow and channel tax cuts to the upper brackets."
Compassionate conservative indeed!
Best to all,
Jon Michaels

[jim stone]

One of the reasons I'm not responding to you very much is that your
posts, while quite intelligent, are vitriolic 'you conservatives,'
and stated in extremes (e.g. 'Our national health care system
is 'don't get sick.') Also there's a tendency not to count,
not even enough to respond to them, the things that
are said (e.g. that what happened to the DCs wasn't
orchestrated by the right but was grassroots outrage
by the sort of people who listen to Country and Western).

Also lacunas and inferential leaps. No author or subject
for the above quotation, or much inkling of what it is
(a letter to the editor? An editorial? A newsstory)
or what it's about. Also apparently the inference that if it's published
in the NYTs, it's true.

It's hard to respond to stuff like this, it takes too much
sorting out before there's anything we can talk about.

Like your passion and intelligence, hope you'll tone things
down, put down the shotgun, pick up the rifle.
Also more cordiality would be welcom throughout
your posts, not only in the closing line. We're no more
donkeys or ill-intended than you are. Prefer discussion
to bashing each other. Best wishes, Jim

[Bloomfield]

One of the reasons I'm not responding to you very much is that your
posts, while quite intelligent, are vitriolic 'you conservatives,'
and stated in extremes (e.g. 'Our national health care system
is 'don't get sick.') ...

Jim, really. Vitriolic? I don't think so. Jon is a bit more passionate and outspoken, but if that's vitriolic than you must be one of those "I just get tired of all the America-bashing" types, which I didn't think you were. (And care to read back, just for comparison's sake, to the posts a few months back by bagfed and others?)

"Our national health care system is 'don't get sick'" is not an extreme statement. Neither in tone nor in substance. (More people in the US than in any other Western democracy live at or below the poverty line and without adequate health care.)

It bugs me that you jump on Jon here, Jim, because you thank Doc Jones for non-substantiated shot-gun posts in another thread (I am not saying I have an issue with Doc Jones' posts but that you are applying a double standard). Also you are fond of the glib, facile statement yourself:

The bottom line is that a rich and powerful nation
is going to be resented, no matter what it does.
Simple envy will see to that, and a feeling
of inferiority (especially in the third world).
Human beings are pretty simple,
finally. That means that if we succeed
we will be resented--e.g. for winning
the Cold War.

Pardon me, but that is not particularly deep.

You are willing to cut the Government a lot of slack and bend over backwards to find good intention in their email policy for instance. Why don't you cut those with whom you haven't agreed so far some slack, too, and try to see if there is a reason that some feel the way that Jon does?

I can understand that "you conservatives" gets your hackles up, and I think it was meant to. But it's the kind of thing you should "take on the chin", Jim, and not mope about, I think.

[glauber]

I can't bring myself to even imagine in which kind of circunstances i would want to send an email to President Bush. Even if i did, i'd be crazy to think that he would actually read it!

So this is a non-issue for me.

[Jon-M]

Thanks, Bloomfield!
First of all, Jim, you're quite correct, I failed to give the context for that Times piece (which was an editorial in yesterday's paper). I hope you'll accept that that was an oversight, not some intended distortion. Here's the opening:
"President Bush is planning a victory lap today for his latest round of tax cuts, visiting Philadelphia to signal the first mailings of $400 government checks to 25 million middle-class families entitled to expanded child credits. Missing from the photo opportunity, unless the president plans something truly dramatic, will be any children from poor families left out of the child-credit boon while the Republican-controlled Congress continues to wrangle over this shameful omission."
Having repaired the omission, I have to note, Jim, that you respond with yet another offensive thrust that avoids responding to substantive issues by giving an excuse for not responding to those issues. Please don't take this as a personal attack on you personally; I'm sure you're a great guy who I would be proud to have as a friend-- if you'll ever speak to me after this! However, I recognize tactics when I see them, and the only way to deal with that is to bring it out in the open.
FYI, earlier I noted that I was quoting figures from Ferguson and Rogers' Right Turn. If you want the full citation, here it is:
Thomas Ferguson & Joel Rogers, Right Turn: the Decline of the Democrats and the Future of American Politics (Hill and Wang: New York, 1986), p. 130. It's a great book that doesn't let the Democrats off any more than it does the Republicans.
Yours in personal friendship but political disagreement,
Jon Michaels