Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Paper Cuts



Paper Cuts
Charlie Earl

When pollsters examine the voting universe, they attempt to identify registered voters and likely voters. Registered voters are those who are legally qualified to cast a ballot in the current election cycle (yes, I know, wishful thinking). Likely voters are those whose voting habits indicate that they will probably cast their votes this time as well. Clearly, except for the usual instances of fraud, the election will be decided by registered voters, and probably by likely voters. Those who consistently go to the polls during the election process will have a greater impact than those who do not (a self-evident observation).

In 1967 I was finally eligible to vote. We had to be 21 years of age in those days so I was not allowed to vote in the 1964 contest between Senator Barry Goldwater and President Lyndon B. Johnson. Suffice it to say that my candidate got his doors blown off in that national referendum. My single little vote could not have turned the tide from Johnson’s “Great Society” goodie wagon to Goldwater’s small government point-of-view. This is a very long introduction to my topic and title, “Paper Cuts.” Every day since August my mailboxes, electronic and snail version, have been inundated with slick campaign literature pieces.

Perhaps when one reaches his mid-sixties, politicians and their minimally-astute minions assume that we like mail because we have nothing better to do than to scan and absorb slick advertising copy featuring the handsome candidate and the requisite perfect family. My ever-shrinking memory bank reminds me that my campaign produced a similar piece during our 1982 campaign for the Ohio House of Representatives. There we were…the four of us seated in front of the fireplace. My wife, Pat, and I were nattily attired and our precious offspring were angelically inspired. Kelly wore her cowgirl boots with a modest mid-calf skirt (she was 13), and seven-year-old P.J. looked rather dapper with his hair somewhat under control (an exception). Our placid yet confident poses did not reflect the turmoil and chaos in our household during that hectic campaign season. But …. We only did the one mailer….sent to every household in the district. In 2012, it’s a different ballgame.

Obviously as we get closer to final Election Day, the quantity of political mail increases exponentially. Several of the candidates send mailers to me several times per week, and in some cases several per day. Notice the multiple uses of “several” in one small sentence? Several in the electoral context means too many, too often. The vast majority of the glossy pieces add nothing to my knowledge about the candidate, party or policies. They generally fail to include any nuance or specifics. In fact they offend me. If a candidate, party or special interest group believes that I am so easily persuaded by so little information, then they under-value my smarts and my role as a conscientious citizen. My response is: nice family, nice graphics, so what?

Stop the overkill with the barrage of electronic and paper mailing. Allow the Postal Service to die gracefully without being propped up by your big bucks being shelled out for your bulk rate. Send me fewer pieces with more depth and explanation. Spare me the cascading reams of paper that spill from my modest little rural mailbox at 4:15pm. Please Candidates, tell me more and contact me less. I’ll have a higher opinion of you if you do.

Oh yeah, then there are the insufferable ads on video….TV, cable and satellite. But that’s another story. I must go soak my ailing fingertips in Bactine now.

Charlie Earl



No comments:

Post a Comment