|
Something I have found from an uncle who worked as a secretary for a number of political figures:
Letters that stay positive (instead of rant-y), that cite specific bills/cause examples (instead of, for instance, saying that 'equality is important', talk about the impact of a specific law that supported or undermined equality in the workplace/elsewhere), and that seem to support the politician (whether or not you actually do), have more of an impact on policy and are more likely to get passed up the line to the politician personally.
If you are good with phrasing and choose your sources properly, it might even get quoted by the politician.
Example.
Let's say you live in the united states and are upset about school shootings.
For further specifics, let us suppose that your representative gets campaign funding from the NRA and is vocal about the right to bear arms, but if they have any intelligence they've probably not said anything about that after a recent school shooting. Maybe they'll have made noises about arming teachers or something like that, which for the sake of this example you oppose.
In fact, let's suppose further that you did not vote for this representative.
But you still want them to do what they can to further YOUR desires, while they are in office.
If you write a ranting letter asking "why haven't you done anything?" your letter might be ignored, or it might end up in a 'potential threat' pile, but at the very best case you're only looking at it showing up in a composite statistic data set under the column of unhappy citizenry.
If instead you write a sympathetic letter....
Talking about how you know how difficult it can be to represent a diverse constituency still dealing with grief, but how you feel it is important that specific steps be taken to make sure that guns don't end up in the wrong hands. You acknowledge that you know they receive funding from the NRA, and commiserate on how difficult it can be to make sure that citizens' rights are protected, while still protecting their lives, and the lives of their children. You suggest that perhaps a bill could be introduced (or if one is already on the docket for consideration, supported) to add a layer of oversight to semi/automatic guns, as this would avoid offending the large part of his constituency which owns personal small firearms, but could reduce the chance that unstable persons could create a new tragedy. Or perhaps suggest that they introduce new local taxation on ammunition which funds a therapy position to benefit survivors and family of people affected by shooting tragedies. [the benefit of the taxation being ammunition is that fraction harder to get hold of, and is a foot in the door for other future possibilities]. You close by thanking them for their tireless efforts to prevent future school shootings and tell them you will be watching to help them celebrate their future triumphs in working towards this goal.
A letter like that gets passed along.
A letter like that tells them several things.
It tells them they have voters in their district who pay attention to what they do and where they get their money.
It tells them that even though you know they have taken a stand that seems counter to your personal goal, you STILL EXPECT THEM TO DO SOMETHING.
It tells them that you want specific, concrete, measurable results and that they have voters who will be looking for those results more than just words.
It avoids falling into the trap of taking a stance against a core part of their platform (which would have let them blow off your points and hide behind a previously established position), and doesn't leave them any room to object to your goal.
A letter like that can do a lot. Especially if you can somehow work in casual mention to a specific group of people who are also interested in seeing their future outcomes. (Something like, "While talking with my friends who live closer to the school, I told them you could be counted on to actually take constructive action. We're all counting on you, and we'll make a party of watching the next legislative session.") Something like that, and now you are assumed to be the spokesperson for your group of friends, and they assume you're speaking for more than just yourself personally, which gives even more weight to your letter.
The assumption, in your language usage, that OF COURSE they are going to do what you want, leaves them in a different position.
Instead of you being a petitioner who wants something from them, which they can decide on....
now you are "their supporter" (which position implies that you've previously given them something -support- and that they therefor now owe you something -representation. Doesn't matter if you didn't actually support them; what they see is the words of your letter, and your language has that assumption embedded in it)... and further, your assumption that they're going to do what they want leaves them having to justify it to you if they don't.
I forget the name of the psychological trick that utilizes, but there's a term for it. And a different term for the same thing when you're talking to marketers.
Anyhow.
If you want to write to someone, those are the tricks my uncle taught me.
 (0)  (0) |
|
