Contents

This is sage advice from the Civic Engagement Project.  I have a couple of things to add, which expand on what is said in the piece by Amedei:

First, when speaking to a representative about why you want them to vote a particular way and the reason why, make the effort to translate that reason why into the language and values used by the official.  Don't skip your reasons for wanting the legislation in terms of social justice or welfare values, but put the reasoning that locks into the official's own primary concerns first.  If the official is primarily concerned with maintaining the local jurisdiction's tax base, talk about the effects of his decision on the issue on likely future tax revenues.  If the official is primarily concerned with the health and vitality of local business, talk first about the effects of her decision on the issue on likely future business viability and profitability in the community.  Then you can mention how the legislation, in addition to likely being good for tax base or business, also helps low income people, or improves community amenities and makes Grand County a better place to live for everyone, corrects an existing social injustice, or whatever.

Examples:  (a)  When dealing with a County Commission ideologically fixated on "private property rights" which thought any talk of "community welfare" could only come out of the mouth of a dedicated Communist, I explained proposed Land Use Code regulation of private property in terms of how it resolved the conflicts we had experienced over how one person's exercise of what he thought his private property rights were was seen as trespassing on his neighbor's exercise of their private property rights.  (b) When talking to Councilcritters fixated on local business welfare about need for public subsidy of moderate income housing, I describe it as "workforce housing" and point to the increasing difficulties businesses are having recruiting and retaining qualified employees because of lack of local housing new employees can afford to acquire.  Note in these examples that there is no deception; my arguments are the honest truth as I know it, but phrased in terms that establish with the official that I understand and share their values and concerns.  When dealing with any official, it is critical to first establish common ground - what you agree on - before getting into any differences.  By establishing common ground, you avoid being seen as a cone-headed alien who is incomprehensibly wrong-headed and therefore to be placated and made to go away without having one word one says be understood by the official as something relevant to him and his responsibilities of office.

Second, there are some a powerful psychological laws underlying Amedei's talk of "relationship building."  One law was explored by a psychologist named Zajonc in a long series of social psychological experiments which were replicated by other researchers.  That law is that "familiarity breeds liking."  Repeated exposure to an idea or to a person (unless they act as a punishing stimulus) causes the evaluated positivity of that person or idea to increase as a direct mathematical function of the number of exposures. 

A second law was revealed by decades of research into social conformity and how people create cognitive schemata - "maps" of social reality.  ll human beings, being social animals, are equipped with an unconscious, hard-wired community consensus detector.  The ability to detect and conform to community consensus without having to think about it is a powerful survival skill for members of a tribal species.  Politicians are in the role of tribal leader who resolves conflicts over tribal values or issues.  Both politicians and their constituents make unconscious judgments about where the "center of gravity" of community opinion on an issue lies based on the number and strength of opinions they detect being expressed about that issue among members of their "tribe."  Most political constituents belong to community subgroups, who are most often in interaction with other members of that subgroup.  Opinions which differ from the norm for that subgoup are therefore seen as being held by "not-us" people, and therefore to be both of suspect validity and under-estimated as to their prevalence in the polity as a whole.  The official who comes from such a subgroup is exposed to people and opinions from outside that subgroup, and should have a set because of being an officeholder that he or she is supposed to fairly weigh different opinions; the needs and perspectives of different groups in the polity; deciding what is best for the polity as a whole.  Underlying this weighing of different opinions and perspectives is the official's experience of the number of people in the community who hold those different opinions and perspectives.  If the official detects 50 times from members of his subgroup of origin during informal social contacts that they don't see affordable housing is a problem which needs to be addressed for the good of the community, while the official only hears once or twice from a couple of constituents who do think it is a critical problem, the official will see affordable housing as a matter of concern to a minority fringe and will resist taking any action to facilitate affordable housing against which there is any political resistance.  If the official hears from large numbers of people on repeated occasions that affordable housing is a critical issue in the community, backed up by statistics showing how lack of affordable housing is going to hurt local business viability, the tax base, and community viability in the long run, then the official is likely to support voting for measures to subsidize community moderate income housing and is equipped to justify his doing so to someone who comes in opposing the measure.

To paraphrase Woody Allen, "Ninety percent of politics is just turning up."  A lot of what Amedei spells out here I classify under "providing officials with political cover."  Whether an official seems to believe similarly or differently to you as a progressive, to get them to vote for a progressive cause they need to have two things in order to have "political cover" which will embolden them to vote as you seek them to:  (1) They need to be able to demonstrate substantial constituent support for their voting for their measure.  It is a consensual political value that elected representatives are supposed to REPRESENT the interests of their constituents.  We therefore need to provide political cover for them in the form of performing such political theater as is necessary to make it appear they are representing their constituents will in the matter by voting the way they vote.  (2) They need to be able to demonstrate that what they are voting for serves positive consensual community values.  We therefore need to provide political cover for them in the form of equipping them with facts and reasoning so they can demonstrate they are serving their constituents' interests by voting the way they vote.  -Lance Christie

At 12:19 PM 2/4/2008, you wrote:
 

When Your Elected Officials Seem “Hopeless”

Here’s a familiar line: “My representatives won’t listen to me no matter what I say. They believe the opposite of everything I believe.  We’re total opposites.  I’d be wasting my time talking to them.” Familiar yes, but wrong.

While it is true that successful political movements work with traditional allies and “swing votes” in the political middle, good advocacy is about winning over (or neutralizing) the opposition. Here are 6 reasons for approaching elected officials who oppose your view.

...conveying your position is basic to good advocacy.

As citizens and voters, our job is to ask them to vote a particular way, and explain our reasons why; their job is to be asked. They can’t represent you (your issue, your group) unless you tell them how you wish to be represented, and why. That’s basic.

...opponents dismiss us when we aren’t clear about what we are for.

Someone who fails to spell out their position can be written off as a “knee-jerk liberal;” a well-articulated position is harder to ignore. Besides, elected officials often reflect the views of their voters -- people you also have to win over.

...they and their colleagues respect constituent pressure.

If and when you DO win your legislators over to your side, they’ll need to be able to say their constituents pressed them to do it. This is especially important if you are asking them to take a position with which their own political party disagrees.

...good advocacy is a way to educate and build relationships.

Legislators’ positions often reflect what they believe their constituents want and value.  Your letters, telephone calls, and visits inform your elected representatives about your issues, while also conveying that there is strong support for your position. Never give your elected representatives the right to say, “I never heard from anyone on this issue.”

...people and minds change.

Even the most apparently immovable legislators have been known to change their position on issues -- particularly when the voters back home make clear they want a change. Twenty-five years ago almost nobody in public office was pro-choice, pro-diversity, or anti-tobacco; today, growing numbers of elected officials are.  They didn’t change by accident, and didn’t change overnight: the persistent work of good advocates was key.

...we can’t give up.

Part of our job is to be a presence. The people elected to represent all the people should NOT be allowed to cast votes affecting children, families, and other vulnerable people safe in the knowledge they won’t have to face them or their advocates.  Our elected representatives should always feel that someone is watching -- and that someone is us.

When Your Elected Officials Seem Like “Sure Votes”

Here’s a familiar line: “My representatives are already on my side. I’d be wasting my time and theirs talking to them.” Familiar, but wrong.

While it is true that successful political movements build new allies and neutralize opponents, all good advocacy efforts include ways to work with the legislators who agree with you. Here are some ways to think about elected officials who support your view.

 
...saying thank you is basic to good advocacy.

Thanking supporters is essential to any political movement. Saying “Thank You” tells legislators you noticed their actions and appreciated their effort -- even when you lose.

 ...people (and their minds) can change.

Even the most principled politicians have been known to change their position on issues.  As time passes, a politician’s values can change or opponents’ advocacy can take its toll. Also, there is always pressure on politicians to compromise on controversial issues. Don’t let your inaction give your supportive legislators a reason to change their minds!

...your advocacy gives supporters a basis for their position.

Legislators take positions based on their perception of what their constituents’ value. The more letters, telephone calls, and visits your elected representatives receive, the more you both can claim support for your position. This will help in recruiting other supporters and in diffusing any opposition. For example, you can put a human face on your issue by introducing a constituent who would be directly affected by the upcoming vote.

...their colleagues respect constituent pressure.

It strengthens an elected official’s hand when they can tell a colleague: “I support this, and I’m getting piles of mail and telephone calls from my voters. They really want this.”

...advocacy is a chance to educate and build a relationship.

Legislators juggle lots of subjects. They may be very supportive of an issue but be unaware of it - or have little knowledge. You can help make them better advocates by arming them with your best arguments. This is a chance to be a resource, and to build a solid relationship – one that may help you in the future. For example, provide your legislator with a Fact Sheet summarizing recent research or its impact on the district, or arrange a site visit to let your legislator see your efforts in his/her Legislative District.

...there is always more to do.

Good advocacy efforts do not stop when you hear that your representative supports your cause. For example, you can ask them to talk to other legislators..., publicize your cause in their District newsletter...., co-sign an editorial piece..., advise you on approaching other legislators..., speak up on the Floor of the legislature or in their caucus....

Prepared by Nancy Amidei for the Civic Engagement Project (amidei@u.washington.edu )