"Duluth gets its wish…a meeting with [Rep.] Cravaack" - headline in today's Duluth News Tribune
Wait a minute! I'm in Duluth and I didn't really want a meeting with Rep. Chip Cravaack. OK! OK! I might have gone to yesterday's "Town Meeting" at the Duluth Airport if I hadn't had other things I wanted to do and other places I wanted to be. But even then, would I have gotten one of the 200 seats or would I have been one of the 12 speakers selected? In retrospect, why bother?
I don't understand this mania for having "Town Meetings" with constituents when such a small minority would be interested and be able to attend. Duluth has over 80,000 residents and only 200 attended the meeting yesterday. Granted, it was arranged on short notice after many complaints of Cravaack meeting with business groups but not the general citizenry. See Rep. Cravaack is in touch with his constituents?
http://magree.blogspot.com/2011/08/rep-cravaack-is-in-touch-with-his.html Even then, what would it been like if over 1,000 had showed up? How much true conversation will be going on between each attendee and the Representative.
Given all the communication means available to reach a politician, many better ways exist to express a view. The postal service is still working for those who want to write letters. Phone calls are cheap for those who want to leave a message or speak to a staffer. And every politician can be reached on the internet, either by email or by a web form.
What is missing? In a town meeting, those who do get to speak get an instant audience and may even get their question printed in the newspaper. They also get the politician to address their question in front of many other people.
I think the best way for a politician to communicate is through a newsletter to every household. The best of these I've seen is from Bill Frenzel, R., 3rd District, Minnesota in the 70s and 80s. He didn't tout what he voted for or what groups he had appeared before; he told what Congress was doing, sometimes in a straight-forward manner, sometimes in a bit of befuddlement as in "What were they thinking?" Bill Frenzel is one of a kind threatened with extinction, an independently-minded Republican.
OK, Mel, you really wanted to be one of the speakers, right? What would you have said that was so important?
Did Abraham Lincoln tax and spend to build the transcontinental railroad? Or did he tax and borrow to invest in transforming the country? Good paying jobs were created and fortunes were made in the new economic environment.
Did Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman tax and spend for the G.I Bill of Rights? Or did they tax and borrow to invest in increasing opportunities for veterans who got higher paying jobs and paid more taxes.
Did Dwight Eisenhower tax and spend for the interstate highway system? Or did he tax and borrow to invest in transforming the country? Good paying jobs were created and fortunes were made in the new economic environment.
Did John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon tax and spend to put man on the moon? Or did they tax and borrow to invest in transforming the country? New technologies were created, good paying jobs were created, and fortunes were made.
Now it seems we have a hard-nosed political culture that wants to cut taxes, eliminate regulations, and let Ponzi schemes destroy the investments of President Lincoln, Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, President Eisenhower, and Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon.
