It was mid-December and the New START treaty was on the Senate floor. With the 2011 session of Congress coming to a close, and power shifting in the House I knew there was only a small window of opportunity to pass the treaty. And so I decided to step up my activity in the political process and call my Senator to tell him what I thought.
Problem is, my Senator is Mitch McConnell – the most powerful Republican in the Senate. And probably one of the least likely Senators to support the bill because it wouldn’t gain him much favor in his pro-national defense Republican supporters.
But I gave it a try anyway. I signed the petition and after a few days I worked up enough courage to call his office in Washington, DC.
Unfortunately, he wasn’t there to pick up. So I left him a message. I simply said that I was interested in his thoughts on the treaty and how he was going to vote on it. I asked if he could send me some information to let me know what he thought about it. And finally, I said that as one of his constituents, and as a Christian with a firm commitment to peacemaking, that it was important to me that he vote in favor of the treaty. The person taking my call said he would surely respond to my concerns in a mailing.
And surprisingly, about a week ago I received Senator’s McConnell’s response. But I was very confused at the contents of the Senator’s response:
January 25, 2011 Mr. Chris Hughes 1817 Grand Ridge Road Louisville, KY 40214-5921 Dear Mrs. Harper: Thank you for contacting me regarding the re-nomination of Goodwin Liu to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Hearing your views helps me better represent Kentucky in the United States Senate.
The letter then detailed the Senator’s very generic views of what is important to him when voting on Court nominations like that of Mr. Liu – something along the lines of upholding the Constitution and being impartial – but no real specifics about his thoughts on Mr. Liu.
I’m willing to give the Senator the benefit of the doubt. I don’t know how his response got addressed to a completely different person, and I’m not entirely sure how he could completely miss the issue that I called him about. So I’m writing the Senator back, hoping to correct this mistake. Here is my response:
February 12, 2011 Dear Senator McConnell, Thank you for responding to my phone call to your office. But I am concerned – either your staff is underpaid or overworked, so much so that they didn’t catch a few minor errors in your response. The letter was addressed to my correct address, but was given the salutation, “Dear Mrs. Harper.” I have no aliases that I go by, especially something as bland as ‘Harper,’ and I have never been a married woman. In another minor error, there seems to be no mention of the New START treaty, the issue that I called your office about. While I am certainly glad to know of Mr. Liu’s re-nomination to the Court of Appeals (good for him!), I doubt very strongly that it will have any major impact on the reduction of nuclear arms in Russia or the United States. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me, but maybe in the future, don’t take so much time. I was interested in your views on the New START treaty while it was on the Senate floor and how you were going to vote on it before it’s passage – not over a month after the fact. Also, just a little advice: when responding to your constituents, don’t be so dodgy. I don’t know who Mrs. Harper is or why she cares about Mr. Liu’s re-nomination, but making a bunch of broad statements about valuing someone who upholds the Constitution, and is impartial does not really tell her anything about your thoughts on him. I am studying to be a minister. I know if someone in my congregation asked me about the authority of the Bible or to explain what the Trinity means, and I responded with something about valuing the foundational text of our faith, or some affirmation of the perichoretic nature of God then I would probably be able to keep my job because I didn’t offend anyone. But I also didn’t add any depth or knowledge to that person’s faith. Being vague may get you re-elected for another twenty-five years, but it won’t help inform the constituents who care enough to contact you about issues. Than you, Senator, for reassuring me of my reasons for never voting for you. Not only do you not represent my views in the Senate, but you cannot take the time to make sure you correctly address a response to your own concerned, engaged constituents. Sincerely, Chris Hughes
I’m hoping the Senator will get back to me soon!
Comments