The Crackpot Alarm

Darryl Pearce wrote the following in comments to an earlier post:

I've already sent my letter-to-the-editor for this month (they've been rationing me).

This got me thinking.

I work for a medium-sized newspaper (one coworker tells me it's actually the 96th largest paper in the U.S.). We seem to publish pretty much any halfway-well-written, halfway-civil letter we get. I imagine the same is true for most small- and mid-sized papers.

I've neglected the letter-to-the-editor as a part of my responsible-citizenship/change-the-world toolbox. That's kind of dumb. I can't send letters to the paper where I work, of course, but there are a handful of small papers here in Delco that would be pretty likely to publish an occasional letter. So, OK, time to start doing that.

But as Darryl notes, there's a balancing act as far as the frequency with which you can send such letters. My guess is the once-a-month standard his paper seems to have is pretty typical.

But my main question, as far as this sort of thing goes, isn't about letters to the editor. It's about letters to our members of Congress. These are letters I do send. I don't have to worry about them being too frequent to be published, but I do wonder how frequently I can get away with sending such letters without getting categorized as a tiresome crank.

If I send a single letter, or even a single letter per year, then my understanding is that Sens. Specter and Santorum and Rep. Weldon (all R-Pa.) will interpret these as representative letters. But if I started sending letters every day I imagine these would be color-coded and filed under "crackpot," and my opinions would be dismissed as representative of only me -- a single obsessive and vaguely stalker-ish constituent whose vote they weren't going to get anyway.

So if we imagine some kind of curve graphing the frequency and potential efficacy of letters to Congress, there should be a point at which we can maximize the frequency of those letters without diminishing their impact with the suspicion of crackpotism.

So ...

Any congressional aides or staffers out there who can give me the inside scoop? Is there a good rule of thumb we should know about here? How often can we get away with letters to Congress without setting off the crackpot alarm?

Comments

[Jon H]

And, when writing to a congresscritter of your own party, should you enclose a photocopy of the canceled check of your last contribution?

Or would that be crass?

[Peatey]

I believe this great query should be directed to the Decembrist, as he worked for Sen.Bradley...

[Protagoras]

I don't know anything about writing letters to congresscritters, but as far as writing letters to editors, I don't believe there's any reason to think there's a point at which you're sending too many. Just write them all well. Felicia Nimue, as she now calls herself, has had hundreds of letters published on the New York Times editorial page over the past couple of decades. You wouldn't expect there to be anyone much more selective for such letters than the NYT. However, they don't seem to reject hers just because she sends so many. Rather, they seem to consistently accept hers because they're usually so good (she's generally brilliant, and specifically a good writer, if somewhat nutty at times).

[D. Sidhe]

Being labelled a crackpot is not likely an issue when writing your representatives, unless you require specific constituent services.

To echo Protagoras' remarks, from what I understand from a friend at a district legislator's office: it depends on what kind of letter you write.

If you send six letters to your senator a month about street corners that need stoplights, you'll probably get dismissed as a crank. Or at least as "well meaning, but unrealistic".

But when it comes to "issues", they don't care so much what the letter says or who wrote it, they're just tallying up "pros" and "cons".
Is there a halfway house planned for your community? Even if you *are* considered a crank, they'll probably still mark you down as opposed or supporting, and move onto the next letter

If you want something more than to let your congressperson know how his or her constituency feels about something, it requires more effort on their part, possibly more money from the budget, and certainly more time; and therefore more screening. That's where their opinion of you personally comes in.

But if an issue is in the news, they may just be looking for a sense of what the voters want.
So A) identify yourself as an eligible voter in your representative's district (giving a phone number and address works), B) tell them why you're writing, and C) tell them what you'd like them to do.
Keep it short and respectful in the first few sentences, and indulge your passion in the rest of the letter.

Hope this helps.

[Captain Slack]

And, when writing to a congresscritter of your own party, should you enclose a photocopy of the canceled check of your last contribution?

Or would that be crass?

"A common myth is that money buys power here in Washington. It doesn't, it buys longer letters."

[Mike Timonin]

I worked for a while in the General George Marshall archives - basically a collection of Marshall's correspondance, and of the papers of others connected to Marshall in some way. Pretty much all of the collections of public figures contained a selection of "crackpot" letters. In general, what qualified someone as a crackpot was not the frequency of writing (many people wrote to these public figures on a regular basis) but on the content of the letter. For instance, someone who wrote daily letters to Marshall would have an extensive file, but might be a valuable contact, or a good friend. Someone who wrote once, arguing that FDR was not dead, but had instead been kidnapped by aliens working for the Chinese (not making this up), went immediately into the crackpot file, even if they never ever wrote again.

Send letters. Send many letters. Write them well, make them informative. Better yet, send e-mails.

[Scorpio]

Pretty often, actually. I usually make mine issues-based, and write them when something is important to me. I doubt I approach more than half a dozen of the categories they have on their e-mail choice interface -- and they ave 25 or 30.

[Ray]

"Better yet, send e-mails."

I've always worked on the assumption that politicians will pay more attention to letters than emails, because letters take more time and trouble to send. Anyone know different? And do you USians have an equivalent of http://www.faxyourmp.com/index.php3 ?

[FHC]

I used to work for a state legislator, so I can affirm some of the comments above. It's now how often you write, but what you say. You can get certified as a crackpot with one letter, if it's a crackpot letter. Mulitple letters, if all good, on-point, and reasoned, are fine--heck, they're welcomed. Letters provide a barometer of what the constituency is thinking, so I would add this bit of advice to multiple letter-writers: it is better still to have multiple people write one letter each on an issue than to write several on the issue yourself.

[natalia]

in college, was an intern for a high profile senator on capital hill. i sorted through these letters. frankly, at least in a u.s. senators office, people don't necessarily read your letters word for word - they just tally them, and pass the numbers along. perhaps if a letter is particularly poignant, touching, or personal, the letter would be filtered through office channels to the senator, but the most part, they were just put on stacks, and automated responses were sent to letter writers. the people reading the letters changes every semester, so i don't think you have to worry about being labeled as a crackpot, esp. if your letters MAKE SENSE. my god - we received suspicious packages, hate mail, birthday cards, and other weird things. again, any normal, interesting, engaging letter you write would probably be a breath of fresh air to most interns.

i remember working in the office during the ashcroft confirmation hearings and our pile of 'confirm' faxes was twice as large as our 'don't confirm' pile ... and i worked for a Democratic senator. this goes to show you what senators know about people who vote.

so even when i get format letters in my mailbox, i sent them. rick santorum and arlen spector interns certainly must know my address by heart by now. this is exactly why i encourage every single person i know to click on those e-mails.

on the other hand, i KNOW that my local newspaper thinks i am a complete crackpot. they have published every letter i have ever written (about 6 in the past three years). i would write more, but i rant too much. i really should just apply for my own newspaper column. it's been on my mind lately, but i have "crazy activist lady" stamped all over me now!

[Adrian]

Ray,
Paper letters used to be the most effective way to get through to Congresscritters. Since the anthrax scare a few years ago, they've become more wary of paper. It takes longer to get through and sometimes doesn't get through at all. E-mail has bulk duplication problems, leaving faxes as the most effective way to get through. Paper letters are still effective if it's not urgent or critical (ie, if you're writing a couple of times a month about a long term issue, it doesn't matter if all your mail has a 2 week lag. Or if 1 piece gets lost.)

[Ray]

Thanks, I'd forgotten all about the anthrax thing.

[Matt McIrvin]

Didn't the infamous Jessica Cutler once write an aside on her blog in which she snickered at the naifs in the sticks who actually believe that anyone even opens letters to members of Congress?

Not that Cutler was a reliable source about anything...

[Jon H]

I was surprised recently to see letter published in the NY Times from a Baywatch Babe (Alexandra Paul).

OT:

I just realized that we're only six months into Bush's second term.

It feels much, much longer. This is going to be a very, very long four years.

[eRobin]

I've been told and I believe that getting published in the paper isn't the only goal of writing a letter to the editor. It's a good idea to let the editors know what stories their readers are interested in.

[Ronit]

Postcards to congress are the way to go: no anthrax worries.

[R. Mildred]

Of course, all this tlak of email Vs. mail Vs. faxes will be redundant when a major political figure decides to get their own blog.

And on that day, Trolls will reach a new level of enlightenment and High Art involving ways to mispell "u r teh gaye" and calling the elected respresentative a faggot that will leave the entire future of internet trolling changed.

[Shoplifter in Aisle 10]

my local yokel opinion page "editor" may not ration me, but she's pretty heavy handed with the old delete key.

[The Navigator]

I interned in my Congresswoman's office in summer 1995, and my experience was that of Natalia - we got piles of mail every single day, and we just counted it up. It's unlikely they'll notice one individual in that flood.

[FHC]

This is interesting. In the State Rep's office where I worked, we read and answered every letter--real answers,usually from the boss, not form letters--even the crackpots. The difference, of course, is that State Reps get a lot less mail then Congressional Reps.

It may not be much use to write to State Reps for the big national issues, but for the big local issues or in determining the way national law gets applied locally, writing your State Rep gets you a great deal. In many ways, your state senator or state rep have a larger impact on your daily lives than your congresscitters and you, as it happens, have potentially greater impact on them.

[Kelly K]

Crackpot status is not so much a product of frequency as it is of content.

Insightful, well-written comments, whether sent to a congressperson or a newspaper editor, should always be appreciated.

Though it is understandable when a newspaper sets limits on how often any one letter writer is featured. My magazine does the same thing with press released - it's always the same people sending them and we don't want to give off the impression we have 10 readers.

[Darryl Pearce]

I've called and emailed my senators. I've called and emailed and visited my representative (well, visited his office anyway).

Whenever I feel down about not being heard, I remember what Rev Martin Luther King Jr told actor Nichelle Nichole (of Star Trek fame: "Just by being there, you're making a point."

[Darryl Pearce]

I've been banging on my government's doors by letters and phone calls and visits (and the occasional street-corner demonstration).

Whenever I get down, I remeind myself of Nichelle Nichols visit with MLKjr and his advice of just by being there, you're making a point.

A columnist for my local paper once responded to one my letters with the observation sometimes we need the fellow screaming from his soapbox.

[Darryl Pearce]

...oops.

[Nate]

Can anybody reccomend good sources of advice for writing letters to the editor? I've had two I sent in, that didn't get published, and it's really hard to try and write ones opposing, y'know, torture and things, without shifting into rant mode. Which is fine for LJ and blogs, but not quite so good for newspapers, especially if I want them to do anything other than spark other angry letters.

[Darryl Pearce]

...advice for writing letters to the editor

Keep the letter short (I keep mine under 250 words).

Stay on topic: one issue per letter.

Write it. Go get a refreshment. Come back and read it.

Trim it.

...how's that?

[Doctor Science]

Re: Letters to the editor

I write to my local-local hometown paper (the one that comes out once a week) very frequently -- sometimes once a week for a couple months, sometimes only once in two months. I think only one letter has *not* been published. This even though the editor & I disagree on a lot, but she knows I'll send in a well-written letter within her length limits that people will be interested to read, and all but a few weeks a year she's desperate to fill the LTE space.

With that kind of practice, I've had good success with letters to the Trenton Times, one of which got picked by the Philadelphia Inquirer for wider distribution.

Length is *key* -- *never* exceed their suggested word limit, and try to keep it much shorter. The paragraphs and sentences should be short, too -- remember how narrow a newspaper column is set; a single long paragraph is much less likely to be read than one broken into shorter pieces.

Get a good, honest, reliable friend (or two) to critique you. I often post things to a friends-locked livejournal before I send them in, to get opinions on specific phrasing, approaches, etc. Don't fight your friends when they say cut something out, think about why you should. "When in doubt, cut it out" should be your mantra.

Specific details and facts are always good, too.

Short, to a single point, specific: that should be your goal. The more emotional you are, the shorter you have to be -- if you're telling a story, especially a "human interest" story, you can run a little longer.

[Mark]

The media and the FBI have also forgotten about the anthrax letters.