Letters to Congress – January – Thanks for addressing the ‘Tampon Tax’

This month’s letter is more lighthearted: thanking my state senator for sponsoring a bill to eliminate the tampon tax.

Dear Senator Warren,

My name is Monique Rio. I am a piano teacher, indie software developer, and mom of a toddler in Ann Arbor.

I’m writing to you to thank you for sponsoring and supporting the bill to eliminate the “tampon tax”. (SB 898) Hygiene products are just as necessary to life as food. And in general sales taxes hurt the poor more than the rich. I’d support an increase to state income taxes over a general sales tax.

Thank you so much for the work you do.


I heard about the Women’s March on Washington from my mom in the days after the election. As soon as she mentioned it I considered going. Sure, DC is far for a weekend trip, but I’ve done that drive before. When I told Aaron I might want to go, he was supportive, and at that point it started to feel like a real possibility to me. Not long after that I asked Carol if she was interested in coming, and she was.

Our tentative plan was to leave Martin with my parents for the weekend, and the three of us would drive to my mother-in-law’s, and then the four of us would go to the March together. That’s not how it turned out. My parents couldn’t watch Martin because they had to care for my grandparents, so we had to go to our plan B: Aaron stays home with Martin (and they go to the Ann Arbor March), and Carol and I go together to Baltimore. We found out our friend, melannen, was looking for someone to go with to the March so we made arrangements for that too.

It’s interesting to me how many things had to align to enable me to go. I have done that drive before, which made this trip feel doable, and I’d asked Carol to come, which meant that even when Aaron couldn’t go I still felt like I could. I wouldn’t have wanted to make the trek on my own.

A few questions I want to answer: “Why did I want to go?”, “What effect was I hoping to have?”, “Was this just about Trump?/Was this really independent of the election?”

The second question is the easiest, so I’ll answer it first. I believe that the purpose of these demonstrations is two-fold: 1) to fire up the attendees so they continue to act, and 2) to signal to the ambivalent–MLK’s white moderates–that they need to pay attention. I went because I wanted to be inspired and I wanted to be part of the signal. I didn’t entertain hope of changing the minds of the President or Republican Members of Congress.  

To the first question: I went because I knew that it was the right thing? I’m an unapologetic 3rd wave (maybe 4th wave? Is that a thing?) feminist, and the message of the March was undeniably something I could support: “Women’s rights are human rights, and human rights are women’s rights.”

After the election, I needed to get involved in politics. The march was an easy thing to do.

I care about Objective Truth. Things like, what we learn through the scientific method and randomized controlled trials. Things like looking at data-sets and deciphering the true meaning from the data, not coaxing the data to fit a preconceived belief. Things like allowing new, better information to update prior beliefs.

It’s clear from Frank Lutz’s book, Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear (which everyone should read), that Republican leadership has known since at least the 90s that this kind of truth is unnecessary to getting and keeping power. Ordinary people don’t have the time or inclination to follow up on the truth of statements. Ordinary people haven’t internalized the impact that changing the phrase “global warming” to “climate change” has had. I feel motivated to try to do something about it because the President has taken these ideas too far. At this point I feel like I don’t care about my personal impact, I care about being able to tell Martin that I was part of the resistance.

To the last question, I don’t think the March would have happened, or at least I don’t believe it would have been as big, if some other Republican had won. Trump won in spite of saying out loud terrible things about women and blacks and immigrants and disabled people. One of the signs at the protest said, “I can’t believe we still have to protest this shit”. The election made it clear to those of us who thought we were passed this, that indeed we are still in a time where this kind of language is not a deal breaker.

That said, the March was primarily about the state of politics in general. Hillary didn’t speak at the rally. It was about standing together to act.

Near where we stood at the march. I believe we would have been standing to the right of the image. From NPR.

I didn’t take any pictures at the March because I left my phone in the car. I didn’t want to have to hand it over if I got arrested. I figured there would be plenty of people documenting the occasion anyway.

Everyone I interacted with was polite and courteous and overall positive. My mother-in-law couldn’t stand for the whole 4 – 5 hours of speakers–more on that later–so while she sat, Carol, melannen, and I held hands to let people know that they needed to pay attention. Everyone did. No one begrudged her for not standing.

I remember thinking about how nice it was to be around so many women and to hear so many women speaking.

There were a few counter-protesters that the marchers dealt with by chanting “We Choose Love” or “When They Go Low, We Go High” while moving around them.

It was impossible for us to get a real sense of scope. All we knew was that it was bigger than the protests that my mother-in-law had been to and at least comparable to Obama’s inauguration.

I felt the overall logistics–things like Metro service and signage and sound systems–were well handled, but the programming was not. The rally started at 10, and the march was supposed to start at either 1 or 1:30. The speeches didn’t end until maybe 3:30 or 4. At 1:45 the crowd was definitely ready to move, but we were encouraged by the speakers to stay put. Some of the programming at that time was important–in particular the Mother’s of the Movement–and it’s a shame that it wasn’t earlier. Most of the music was ill chosen for a protest, in that much of it wasn’t participatory. The difference between the logistics and the programming was striking. That said, there were many good speakers, in particular for me: Ashley Judd, Gloria Steinem, Michael Moore, and Sophie Cruz.

We spent most of the rally standing by the Air and Space Museum, next to the Planned Parenthood van.

The March itself was more like a shuffle for a lot of the time.

One of the moments I enjoyed was when we encountered someone with banjo or guitar playing “We shall not be moved.” I miss pub-sing. I miss harmonizing. I wish my generation was writing this genre of music.

Staying together during the march was non-trivial, but we did. I felt like about once a minute I had to check whether we were all together. No doubt not having my phone on me made me feel more vigilant.

After the march we managed to get food at Fuel Pizza in DC, which was no small miracle. There was even seating upstairs. We spent a while there so that the crowds waiting to get on the Metro would die down. We were all hungry and exhausted. The Metro had no line when we finally used it.

At one of the more major stops, a group of marchers joined us. They led chants all the way to the end of the line.

This was my first protest. I don’t think it will be my last.

Inauguration Boycott

Update Jan 18. Found out this morning that Congresswoman Dingell is planning to attend the inauguration, so I’ve updated the script to reflect this:

New Inauguration Boycott Script

Staffer: Congresswoman Dingell’s office, how can I help you?

Caller: Hi there, I’m a constituent of Congresswoman Dingell, and I have a question for her regarding the inauguration.

Staffer: I’m happy to take down any comments you may have. Can I ask for your name and address to verify you’re in the Congresswoman’s district?

Caller: Sure thing. [Gives name/address]. Can I ask who I’m speaking with?

Staffer: Yes, this is [Name].

Caller: Thanks, [Name]! I discovered in a Click on Detroit article this morning that the Congresswoman is planning to attend the inauguration. I’m calling to ask if the Congresswoman will reconsider her decision, and join with the 30 or so other representatives boycotting it in response to Donald Trump’s attacks on Representative John Lewis.

Staffer: Something about respect for the transition of power.

Caller: I find it unacceptable that the Congresswoman refuses to take a stand in defense of Representative Lewis.

Hang up.

Yesterday I discovered the Indivisible Guide which has guidance on how progressives can use Tea Party tactics to stifle the damage done by a Trump presidency and Republican controlled Congress. The advice seems sound to me. It boils down to focusing attention on your own Members of Congress and paying attention to the things they care about, mainly re-election.

I’d like to be part of a local group using these tactics. The link for the listed Ann Arbor group doesn’t work, so… I’ll keep an eye out, I guess?

Their action for today is to encourage your representative to boycott the inauguration in response to Trump’s attacks on Representative John Lewis. I’ve called this morning. A decision hasn’t been made yet, but the staffer took my email address. If I don’t hear by this evening I will call again tomorrow.

I’ve written up a script to make it easier for the phone shy, like myself.

It’s time to strengthen some spines.

Inauguration Boycott Script

Staffer: Congresswoman Dingell’s office, how can I help you?

Caller: Hi there, I’m a constituent of Congresswoman Dingell, and I have a question for her regarding the inauguration.

Staffer: I’m happy to take down any comments you may have. Can I ask for your name and address to verify you’re in the Congresswoman’s district?

Caller: Sure thing. [Gives name/address]. Can I ask who I’m speaking with?

Staffer: Yes, this is [Name].

Caller: Thanks, [Name]! I’m calling to ask, if the Congresswoman will be joining with the 40 or so other representatives boycotting the inauguration in response to Donald Trump’s attacks on Representative John Lewis.

Staffer: Well I really appreciate you calling and sharing your thoughts! I of course can’t speak for the Congresswoman because I’m just a Staff Assistant, but I can tell you that I’ll pass your concerns on to her.

Caller: I appreciate that [Name], but I don’t want you to just pass my concerns on. I would like to know if she standing with Representative Lewis or with Trump.

If giving the I don’t know what she’s going to do line.
Go with the negative response. (Which I didn’t do, but whatever. I’ll call again)

If Positive Response
Caller: I’m glad to hear that the Congresswoman will be standing with Representative Lewis. I will let my friends, family, and local newspaper know about this. Thank you so much. Good bye.

If Negative Response
: I find it unacceptable that the Congresswoman refuses to take a stand in defense of Representative Lewis. I’ll be notifying my friends, family, and local newspaper that our Congresswoman doesn’t think it’s her job to represent us or actually respond to her constituents’ concerns.

Hang up.

Letters to Congress – December – Put SB 88 on the Agenda

This month’s Letter to Congress is to Senator David Robertson, the Michigan State Senator who is the chair for the Committee on Elections and Government Reform. Senator Warren, in response to November’s letter regarding the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, recommended that I contact him and urge him to put Senate Bill 88 on the agenda. So that’s what I’m going to do. You should too!

He’s the Senator for Oakland County, so I especially urge you to contact him if live in that county.

His contact info:

Senator David Robertson
Chair, Committee on Elections and Government Reform
P.O. Box 30036
Phone: (517) 373-1636
Email: SenDRobertson@senate.michigan.gov

(Also, I’m super excited that my hand written letters were both read and responded to with non-form letters. 😀 😀 😀 )

Below is the text for my letter to Senator Robertson, and below that is the text from the letters I received from Senator Warren and Representative Zemke. (Did you know that Google Drive can do OCR?)

Dear Senator Robertson,

My name is Monique Rio. I am a piano teacher, and indie software developer, and a mom of a toddler in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

I am writing to you to urge you to put Senate Bill 88, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, on the agenda.

I know that keeping the electoral college means that candidates spend more campaign dollars in Michigan, but that boost in influence is not worth it. Times have changed. The circumstances that made the electoral college seemingly necessary are not the circumstances today. Every citizen’s vote should be equally valuable. At the very least, Michigan’s Senate should formally discuss whether to join the Compact.

Thank you for your service. My family lives in neighboring Macomb county, and I have friends in Oakland county.

Monique Rio

From Senator Warren

Dear Ms. Rio,

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for electing the United States President by national popular vote.

I share your concerns about the antiquated Electoral College system, which defies the “one person, one vote” principle that underpins our democracy. As a result, under the current winner-take-all structure, candidates can win the Electoral College and thus become President without winning the most popular votes nationwide. Unfortunately, this discrepancy has in fact occurred in five of our presidential elections, and the results of this most recent election only reinforce the need to transition to a national popular vote.

It is for these reasons that I was proud to introduce Senate Bill 88 to enter Michigan into the Interstate Compact to Elect the President by National Popular Vote,” on February 10, 2015, in order to elect the United States President and Vice President by popular vote. After it was introduced, the bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Government Reform. It has received one hearing, but no vote has yet been taken on it. As you likely know, the bill cannot advance to consideration before the Senate as a whole unless it is passed by a vote of the Committee.

While I am continuing to advocate for further discussion on this critical legislation, I also strongly encourage you to continue your advocacy by contacting the committee chair, Senator David Robertson, to urge him to place SB 88 on the agenda. For your convenience, I have included his contact information below:

Senator David Robertson
Chair, Committee on Elections and Government Reform
P.O. Box 30036
Phone: (517) 373-1636
Email: SenDRobertson@senate.michigan.gov

You may also wish to sign up for committee notices if you have not already done so. By signing up for these notices, you will receive notification as soon as the committee chair posts the next meeting date, time and agenda, and you will be among the first to know if SB 88, or any other legislation related to the popular vote, is placed on the agenda. For your convenience, I have provided a link to the committee meeting signup page below


Moving forward, please be assured that I will continue to uphold voting as a fundamental freedom that must be made as representative and accessible to all of our citizens as possible. Although the political climate in the coming years is undoubtedly going to be very challenging, please know that I remain committed to fighting for progressive values and policies.

Once again, thank you for contacting me regarding this important issue. If you have any questions or would like further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact my office at (517) 373-2406 or senrwarren@senate.michigan.gov.


Rebekah Warren

From Representative Zemke

Dear Ms. Rio,

Thank you for contacting my office regarding a national popular vote, and Senate Bill 88. It’s vital to the Democratic process to hear valuable feedback from the people I represent.

I strongly agree that determining the Presidential election based on the national popular vote, rather than Electoral College votes, would be a more democratic and logical system. This is a very interesting idea, and there are many obvious benefits it would have: it would divert exclusive attention being placed on Swing states, thus placing a greater emphasis on the larger amount of States and their respective ideas. The law would also aim at equalizing and increasing voter turnout regardless of which state a voter might live in. I look forward to collaborating with my colleagues as this legislation progresses, and plan to support these efforts to elect the President by popular vote.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. If you have additional questions or concerns, please feel free to contact my office at (517) 373-1792.


Adam Zemke

Easy Daily Activism

I’m taking the advice of my friend, Jeff:

Promoted from a comment: I wrote earlier about making a difference by donating regularly. But some folks can’t afford to, and some folks want to do more than that. So…

(a) pick two or three or five advocacy organizations that really matter to you, and sign up for their e-mail “action” newsletters or the equivalent. Almost all effective advocacy organizations have some kind of “blast” e-mail list that periodically sends out e-mails saying “write your local politician about X“. Find a few of them, and sign up. Then…

(b) do what those blast e-mails tell you to. When they tell you to call or write your local politician, do that. Every time. As much as possible.

If you really want to make a difference, sign up for one advocacy organization for each weekday, and then each weekday evening, before you go to bed, review what that advocacy organization wanted you to do that week and do it. You know, Monday for the ACLU, Tuesday for the National Resources Defense Council, Wednesday for the EFF, etc. etc etc. Ten minutes every day, every weekday. That’ll end up being like 250+ calls / mails / etc. from you in a course of a year. That’s a _huge_ mark you can make.

Remember that your local politicians have to decide every week how far to go on any given issue. They way they tell is by counting letters and e-mails. Even if your local politician is on the opposite side as you, you can scare them into _not_ sticking their neck out too far on a given issue. If a Trump-allied politician gets a ton of letters opposing a Pres. elect-Trump priority and only a few supporting it, they’re probably not going to invest too much effort or capital into advancing that priority. Which is a net win for our side.

Several advantages to this strategy: (a) no awkward meeting strangers and networking thing, for those of you who aren’t so much for that, (b) you can do it from the comfort of your own home/bed/whatever, instead of reading fiction or watching TV or whatever else was your routine, (c) doesn’t cost anything, really, besides the cost of a call or a stamp, and if it’s an e-mail, it literally costs nothing.

And it _matters_. Remember, local politicians largely can’t maintain constant polling in between election cycles to see what the voters think. How many letters / calls / e-mails they get on various topics is central to how they keep tabs on what the voters think, what they should speak out on, and what (if they’re craven) they should leave alone.

So if you went all out and wrote a letter a week, or two letters a week, or five letters a week, that’s a *huge* impact for the causes that matter to you. That’s as many as _two hundred plus_ little bits of impact over the course of a year, for about as much time as you might otherwise have spent on Netflix.

Sign up, write up, make a difference.

I’ve signed up for the action lists of four organizations so far.

I don’t have a fourth one for Fridays. I’ll keep an eye out for a good organization.

Since today is Monday, I’ve looked at EFF’s action recommendations, and sent an email to my representatives encouraging legislation that would make publicly funded research publicly available sooner, and signed a petition to encourage Universities to stop selling patents to useless patent-collectors.

I haven’t received confirmations that I’m receiving emails from PPH, ACLU, or Sierra Club, so we’ll see if they come in.

In Gmail I now have an “activism” label, with sub-labels for each day of the week. I’ve already set up a filter for EFF emails to go to the ‘Monday’ sublabel. I’ll check the appropriate label in the morning at breakfast and do the thing. (Or, I guess, decide not to do the thing.)

To be clear, I don’t agree with everything these organizations are fighting for, but I do agree with a lot of what they are doing. Also, we are giving regularly to most of these organizations already.

For accountability’s sake, I may post a weekly summary of the issues.

How to Talk To Your Relatives at Thanksgiving

One of the calls to action after the election has been to talk to members of your family that have different political beliefs than you.

The constant refrain before the election was not to bother talking because you aren’t going to change anyone’s mind, or that it’s more important to keep your familial relationships than to risk damaging them over politics.

All of the statements above have merit. The standard state of discourse as I see it — explaining why your position is right and why the other position is wrong — doesn’t work. If you just state your case, then you’re more likely to create divisiveness. The temptation for either side to start demonizing the other is high. At the same time if both sides don’t talk to each other it becomes even easier to demonize the other side.

So, I’m going to discuss techniques for talking about difficult topics, in this case politics, that maximize the probability of strengthening your relationships rather than poisoning them.

Reframe Your Goals

There is a catch to this method in that you have to let go of the need to convince your relatives that their positions are wrong.

Your new goal is to understand your family members, and perhaps more importantly to make them feel understood.

Why understanding? Because when someone feels understood they feel more open to change. Because understanding makes it easier to find mutually beneficial solutions. Because people who understand each other see each other as human.

A statement I’ve been hearing a lot is that Democrats forgot to listen to a key part of their usual demographic and that bit them. How much of that is because that demographic doesn’t speak as respectfully as we’d like? We couldn’t continue listening when we heard language that makes us want to vomit. As the good, caring, compassionate people in this fight, the onus is on us to take on the mantle of listening.

It’s important to remember that understanding is not the same as agreeing or condoning.

Don’t Allow Yourself to Feel Superior

It’s important to remember to be humble. Just because you are doing the hard work of understanding their side, you can’t allow yourself to feel superior. The minute you do that, you lose everything. Liberals already get marked as “Smarter than Thou”, and that shuts off communication. You’re asking someone to be vulnerable. If they are willing, that’s brave.

Also, being the instigator of this conversation is the easier place to be in. You’re in control of the conversation. You get to prepare ahead of time. You’re more likely to be successful at communicating your point. You don’t need to gloat.

Also, presumably these are people you care about. These are at heart people you believe are generally “good people.” If you let yourself feel superior, you’ll hurt these relationships.

On that note, have this conversation with someone you genuinely otherwise respect and care about. This kind of conversation is hard enough even when you’ve that going for you.

Be Prepared to Find Out You’re Wrong

Every time I’ve employed this method I’ve found out that some assumption I’ve had was incorrect. I felt embarrassed and terrible and ultimately was a better person for it.

Brace Yourself to Lose Respect for Your Loved Ones

There’s a chance that you could discover unsavory beliefs about your loved ones that will make it hard to go back to the relationship you had. You have to decide how likely this possibility is and if it’s worth the risk.

I think that’s enough preamble. Now to the method:

Figure Out What You Want to Achieve

A good achievable goal is something like “understanding why my relative voted the way they did”. That doesn’t require any change on their part. They’ll probably be happy to tell you. The key word here is understand, which means you can empathize enough with them to walk through their thought process to why they voted. You can put that thought process in your own words and your relative agrees that you’ve summed up their stance.

It’s tempting to underestimate the value of this goal. You haven’t changed anyone’s mind, after all. Except that you have. You’ve changed your own. You’ve learned something about your relative.

But here’s the thing, by successfully achieving this goal, you may be the first liberal to have listened to their side in years. There’s a human face that they love on the other side.

More expansive goals are OK too. The goal “I want my relative to understand why I voted the way I did” is within the realm of possibility. Or even “I want my relative to understand why I believe their vote was harmful” is possible although it’s a tougher sell than the former.

The point is you want to go in knowing what you want to get out of the conversation. This way you can prepare. This way it’s more likely to go the way you want.

I also suggest picking one topic because it’s easier to prepare for and, I think, more likely to be successful than if you’ve have several topics.

Seek First to Understand

As the person reaching out, it is your job to understand first. This means asking questions. This means listening. This means listening past things that aren’t said respectfully. I am all for striving for respectful, politically correct speech, but… behind the garbage talk is probably some pain that makes sense. Look for that.

During this understanding phase you do not get to voice your opinion. You ask questions and you repeat what they have said in your own words. Invite them to correct you. Apologize if things get tense. Remind them that you are trying to understand.

This is not the time to point out how wrong they are or the implications of their beliefs. They are opening up to you.

Only when you get the point where when you ask the question “do you feel like I understand your position?” and they say “yes” do you get to move on.

Repeating what they’ve just said sounds artificial, but it works. If they feel like you’re being condescending, apologize with as much sincerity as you can muster. You just want to make sure that they feel understood.

Feeling awkward and artificial is a reasonable price for a successful conversation. With practice it will become more natural.

You Can Be Done Here

If your goal was to understand your relative, then you are done. You’ve done good work. You can go home and think about what you’ve learned.

If your goal was more expansive…

Then Seek to Be Understood

Ask them how they believe you feel about a given topic. “Who do you think I voted for? Why do you think I voted that way?” Press them to empathize. Do the repeating thing again. “So you think I voted because I don’t care about murdering babies?”. Make sure you’re on the same page. Only then do you get to say how they are wrong. And your relative can’t argue, since these are your feelings and beliefs. Also, your relative cares about you. They want you to be a good person.

After stating your case, press them to repeat what you just said. If they can’t do it, state your case again. Then ask again. As best you can, be humble. “I just want to make sure that I am understood. Have you felt sufficiently understood?”

Again, this will feel artificial. Do it anyway. Apologize for the artificialness. Apologize for being so insecure about their understanding.

This step is only finished when you feel that your relative has adequately stated your side.

Eat Some Pie

If you get this far, you win everything. This is how you change minds. This is how you create healthy discourse.

You deserve pie. You will probably be exhausted.


Before you have this conversation, I highly recommend preparing. When I have used this method, I attribute my preparation ahead of time to how well the conversation went. The better I prepared, the more in control I was of the conversation and the more I understood my position.

No conversation went the way I expected, but by preparing I was able to navigate the unexpected turns. I knew what I hoped to achieve, and I understood my position.

By preparing I mean things like reading books on how to do this kind of conversation. The one that come immediately to mind is: 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey. The conversation method I described above is literally Habit 5: “Seek first to Understand then to be Understood”. It has examples of this conversation method playing out, which I’ve found helpful. (The examples are a bit over optimistic, but it’s a self-help book, so what do you expect? It’s still useful.)

Once you feel you understand the method, roleplay the encounter. I do this in my head, and write down the branches of the conversation tree. I figure out my response to each branch and write it down. This does a couple of things. It helps me react better during the conversation, and this helps me clarify my position and my assumptions.

You can roleplay with someone close to you. Have them pretend to be your relative while you have this conversation with them. I guarantee it will be enlightening. (And probably fun? Who doesn’t like playing a problematic person?)

You have my permission to print out your notes and take them to Thanksgiving. Yes, you will look weird. It’s OK. In addition to looking weird, it shows your sincerity which will help you.

If you’re going to have this conversation in front of your family at Thanksgiving, it might be a good idea to let some sympathetic relatives know ahead of time. Having people on your side makes it easier. Their job would be to encourage your target relative to humor you.  

They Would Never Be This Kind to Me

As Michelle Obama said, “When they go low, we go high.” This is the right and good way to go about political discourse. It sucks. Life isn’t fair. Do you want to sulk, or do you want to make it better?

Take heart that when you initiate this kind of conversation you have the upperhand. You’ve prepared ahead of time, your relatives haven’t.

Also, this is not the same as being told to be nice to the bully. You are asking or even insisting that your relatives see someone who disagrees with them as a person. That’s not a small feat.

This Will Be Super Awkward

Yep. It probably will. It’ll be especially awkward when you fish out your notes at the dinner table and start the conversation. Accept that and do it anyway.

How Do I Deal With Dehumanizing Speech or Incorrect Facts?

Another bit of wisdom from 7 Habits is this: “There is a space between stimulus and response.” You are being baited, whether your relative is doing it consciously or not. You do not have to take the bait. Breath. Keep your desire to understand and your love for this person at the forefront. Remember the people who will be hurt if you disengage from the conversation.

If the attack is at you, “you’re just a whiny millennial”, first breath. Extend that space between stimulus and response. Then remind them of your relationship. “I’m your niece”. You can mention that what they’re saying is hurtful, but it’s probably better to redirect the conversation back on topic. Then ask your relative how you can better understand them. Remember your goal. You didn’t want to have a discussion about millennials. You wanted to talk about whatever your goal was. If you have a notepad you can write down millennials as a topic for future discussion.

If the attack is at others, I’d recommend ignoring and pushing past it. The goal here is to understand. Shaming and putting people on the defensive doesn’t lead to understanding. That said, if it feels too much like condoning bad behaviour to you, I’d follow the advice of this video and attack what was said and not the person saying it.

If your relative is spouting incorrect facts like “global warming is a hoax to kill business”, “Obamacare is a disaster”, “Where was Obama’s birth certificate anyway?”, resist the urge to correct them. (As someone who values truth, I fully get that this is hard.) Your goal is understanding. Figure out how they came to these conclusions. Where are they getting their information from. How did they come to agree with these ideas? To the best of your ability don’t try to Socrates them into changing their minds. And by “Socrates them” I mean asking questions to point out the flaws in their logic. It’s smug. It shows how little you respect them. You’re just showing off how smart you are. Learn from Socrates. That behavior literally got him killed.

Good Luck

This is a lot of work. But it is good work. With practice it gets easier. Take heart that you are doing the right thing. You are demonstrating good political discourse. You are making the world a better place.

It’s in Your Best Interest to Fight Good Legislation

I listened to the latest Hidden Brain episode, which was an interview with Allan Lichtman regarding his method of asking a series of ‘key’ questions to predict the winner of the elections. The method is not without critics, but I think the conclusions drawn from this method are meaningful.

In the interview Lichtman mentions that he believes that governance decides elections. Not campaigns. Not reactions to polling. Governance. Does the electorate want change or do they want more of the same?

If this is true, then you run into a situation. Taking a page from CGP Grey’s series on Politics in the Animal Kingdom, say our two main parties are Gorilla and Leopard. Gorrilla is the ruling party; Leopard is the minority.

Leopard wants to be in charge for the next election cycle, so while Gorilla is in charge, it is in Leopard’s interest to make the life of the electorate worse. A happy electorate under Gorilla would mean more Gorilla in the future. This means that it is in Leopard’s best interest to cripple major legislation that could help vast swaths of the electorate if said legislation is proposed and championed by Gorilla. (I’m looking at you Affordable Care Act. I’ll be paying attention to whether or not the Dems support Infrastructure Renewal efforts.)

Leopard and Gorilla representatives are still held somewhat in check by their constituents, but there is still room for Leopard to fight good Gorilla legislation while keeping their constituents happy enough. Especially with gerrymandering making it less necessary for representatives to keep the diverse interests of their constituents in mind.

Also, would I, someone who believes in most of Leopard’s platform, vote Gorilla because my Leopard representative wasn’t working to make Gorilla legislation more successful? Probably not. At best, I might vote for a more bipartisan Leopard rep during the primary, but that’s assuming that I have the time and inclination to make that determination. Incumbents have a major advantage in part because most of us voters don’t do our homework. (And I’d argue that we shouldn’t really have to. We have a representative democracy for a reason. We have lives to live.)

Food for thought, and for future letters to congress.

Anyone have any book recommendations on the dynamics of democratic systems? The Dictator’s Handbook is already on my list…

Letters to Congress – November – Electoral College

I’ve decided to use my emotions to being a more active constituent.

For each month of this presidency I will write to my representatives about the issues that matter to me. Per this video I will work toward increasing the time capital spent. It starts with hand written letters, and will move toward phone calls.

I will post on fb every month about the issue I’ve written to my representatives about. Please hold me accountable. And please join me in doing the same.

I’m starting with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. There is a bill in the Michigan Senate.

If you want help finding names and address of your appropriate representatives I will do google fu on your behalf.

Hillary is a martyr now. I will never forget. #alwayswithher

Dear Senator Rebekah Warren,

My name is Monique Rio. I am a piano teacher, indie software developer, and mom of a toddler in Ann Arbor.

I am writing this in the wake of the 2016 election in which the popular vote of our President did not match the results of the electoral college. As our country gets more polarized, I fear that this result will happen again and again.

I know that keeping the electoral college means that candidates spend more campaign dollars in Michigan, but that boost in influence is not worth it. Times have changed. The circumstances that made the electoral college seemingly necessary are not the circumstances today. Every citizen’s vote should be equally valuable.

Therefore, I urge you to support the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. (SB 88)

Thank you for your service.
-Monique Rio