One practical point for people calling or emailing reps: tailor the framing to the office you’re contacting.
If your representative is already sympathetic to animal welfare, lead with animal welfare. But if your representative is Republican, skeptical of animal-rights politics, or likely to dismiss this as a single-issue activist concern, lead with the human and institutional problems.
Things like federal preemption, states’ rights, food safety, livestock disease prevention, animal importation rules, public health, and the danger of using the Farm Bill to override state agricultural standards.
Mention the animal-welfare consequences, but limit them to one paragraph, and increase the chance of getting the real animal-welfare win by presenting it as a “bonus” nested inside concerns Republican politicians are more likely to care about, e.g. Washington overriding state authority, weakening livestock disease-prevention rules, or handing one industry a special federal carveout.
Lead with those concerns. Most voters can see instantly that extreme confinement is cruel and unnecessary, but Republican staff may keep reading if the first frame is state authority, public health, and special-interest federal preemption.
Increase expected value by leading with the frame they are most likely to take seriously.
> The Luna amendment, which could have removed this wicked provision from the farm bill(1), failed(2). The only remaining option is voting no on the farm bill itself(3).
1. Wrong.
2. Wrong.
3. Wrong.
There are things you can do. The best thing to do is to meet with your Senator's agricultural policy staff. Especially if they are on the Senate Appropriations Committee. The next best thing is to meet with the agriculture staffer in your GOP Congressman's office. Following the provided script is not good politics, nor rhetorically persuasive.
Calling your representative without context for the scope of what you are asking for is not bad, but it is certainly ineffective. You have better things that you could do, and should pursue the most effective things first.
Similarly, donating money to the Make A Wish Foundation is not bad but it is certainly ineffective.
No, Members are motivated by the perceived utility function of their constituents, which they attempt to appeal to through messaging. You can update their utility curve by calling them, but their models of their constituents are robust, and you need a 'surprising' number of people to call.
What would be effective is giving them ammunition for their messaging campaigns.
Section 12006 would ostensibly reduce the cost of living.
You need to argue with those premises, and think of as many different counter-points on as many kinds of issues as possible. That's why Rep. Luna only cared about Section 12006 on National Security grounds, and its why she dropped her push to remove Section 12006, because there wasn't strong enough messaging to her voters.
Yes, the epistemic dishonesty of saying "The people who supported this provision by and large did it because they are in the pockets of giant factory farms." is astounding.
Democrats are cobbling together a campaign on lowering costs for groceries and essential goods and "affordability." Some Democrats in congress apparently are taking that responsibility seriously - more serious than Trump has, at least.
Also it would really help to have a less high effort easy option. TBH I care but I probably can't actually call someone. I've skipped real jobs for myself because I would have to make a phone call.
I know but an email is better than nothing. Ideally you would offer both.
And I personally hope to send a snail mail as well as the personalized email I sent for that purpose (if I have time) bc that shows the effort without speaking to anyone.
To be clear, getting Democrats to vote no on "the whole rotten farm bill" is probably the entire point of this exercise. It would give Republicans an easy way to attack Democrats who say they want to lower costs while voting to increase the cost of pork.
In California, at least, the people voted for these restrictions. And they are now the status quo! Anyone who says that voting to keep the status quo is voting to “increase the price of pork” is being nakedly dishonest.
This might perhaps be an argument that _abstention_ isn't technically a vote to increase the price. But if the status quo is that the price of pork keeps increasing, and the proposed alternative is to arrest that increase, voting "no" on that IS a vote to increase the price of pork.
At any rate, getting the Democrats to argue this distinction would probably be an adequate victory. It'd be nice to see if they can top Nixon's Third Derivative, when he announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing.
One practical point for people calling or emailing reps: tailor the framing to the office you’re contacting.
If your representative is already sympathetic to animal welfare, lead with animal welfare. But if your representative is Republican, skeptical of animal-rights politics, or likely to dismiss this as a single-issue activist concern, lead with the human and institutional problems.
Things like federal preemption, states’ rights, food safety, livestock disease prevention, animal importation rules, public health, and the danger of using the Farm Bill to override state agricultural standards.
Mention the animal-welfare consequences, but limit them to one paragraph, and increase the chance of getting the real animal-welfare win by presenting it as a “bonus” nested inside concerns Republican politicians are more likely to care about, e.g. Washington overriding state authority, weakening livestock disease-prevention rules, or handing one industry a special federal carveout.
Lead with those concerns. Most voters can see instantly that extreme confinement is cruel and unnecessary, but Republican staff may keep reading if the first frame is state authority, public health, and special-interest federal preemption.
Increase expected value by leading with the frame they are most likely to take seriously.
The appropriately named SOB act
> The Luna amendment, which could have removed this wicked provision from the farm bill(1), failed(2). The only remaining option is voting no on the farm bill itself(3).
1. Wrong.
2. Wrong.
3. Wrong.
There are things you can do. The best thing to do is to meet with your Senator's agricultural policy staff. Especially if they are on the Senate Appropriations Committee. The next best thing is to meet with the agriculture staffer in your GOP Congressman's office. Following the provided script is not good politics, nor rhetorically persuasive.
https://substack.com/inbox/post/195823794
What's the argument for calling representatives being bad? My position is basically that both are good.
Calling your representative without context for the scope of what you are asking for is not bad, but it is certainly ineffective. You have better things that you could do, and should pursue the most effective things first.
Similarly, donating money to the Make A Wish Foundation is not bad but it is certainly ineffective.
I mean, getting a lot of people weighing in influences congresspeople.
No, Members are motivated by the perceived utility function of their constituents, which they attempt to appeal to through messaging. You can update their utility curve by calling them, but their models of their constituents are robust, and you need a 'surprising' number of people to call.
What would be effective is giving them ammunition for their messaging campaigns.
Section 12006 would ostensibly reduce the cost of living.
You need to argue with those premises, and think of as many different counter-points on as many kinds of issues as possible. That's why Rep. Luna only cared about Section 12006 on National Security grounds, and its why she dropped her push to remove Section 12006, because there wasn't strong enough messaging to her voters.
Yes, the epistemic dishonesty of saying "The people who supported this provision by and large did it because they are in the pockets of giant factory farms." is astounding.
Democrats are cobbling together a campaign on lowering costs for groceries and essential goods and "affordability." Some Democrats in congress apparently are taking that responsibility seriously - more serious than Trump has, at least.
It's a matter of priorities setting.
Congressperson contacted. What's the status in the Senate?
They are focusing on the house for now, and will pivot to the senate if the Farm Bill passes the house.
Is there anything people outside the US can do?
To be pedantic obviously I *can* but I won't.
Also it would really help to have a less high effort easy option. TBH I care but I probably can't actually call someone. I've skipped real jobs for myself because I would have to make a phone call.
You can send a message on house.gov
The real effort is the signal to your congresscritter , the email makes way less impact , at least that’s what people on the hill say.
I know but an email is better than nothing. Ideally you would offer both.
And I personally hope to send a snail mail as well as the personalized email I sent for that purpose (if I have time) bc that shows the effort without speaking to anyone.
To be clear, getting Democrats to vote no on "the whole rotten farm bill" is probably the entire point of this exercise. It would give Republicans an easy way to attack Democrats who say they want to lower costs while voting to increase the cost of pork.
In California, at least, the people voted for these restrictions. And they are now the status quo! Anyone who says that voting to keep the status quo is voting to “increase the price of pork” is being nakedly dishonest.
This might perhaps be an argument that _abstention_ isn't technically a vote to increase the price. But if the status quo is that the price of pork keeps increasing, and the proposed alternative is to arrest that increase, voting "no" on that IS a vote to increase the price of pork.
At any rate, getting the Democrats to argue this distinction would probably be an adequate victory. It'd be nice to see if they can top Nixon's Third Derivative, when he announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing.
I encourage Republicans to make inflation as salient an issue as possible for the next six months. Really go to town on it.