Syria sparks email avalanche for Congress

WASHINGTON - While President Barack Obama was pressing Congress to approve military strikes against Syria, thousands of average Arkansans were lobbying the state’s delegation, urging them to vote against intervention in Syria’s civil war.

These messages from average Americans can and do make a difference, especially if they appear to be part of a genuine groundswell.

“You can tell when something is spontaneous, as opposed to organized,” said Lee Hamilton, director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University and a former congressman. “If you get 5,000 messages that are printed exactly the same, use the exact same words, you know there’s an organization behind it telling people what to say. On the other hand, if you’re being inundated with emails that are obviously spontaneous, heartfelt, from a large number of constituents, you have to pay attention to that.”

Hamilton represented Indiana for 35 years. He says the outcry over Syria captured Congress’ attention.

“When it’s an avalanche, and apparently it is, and very one-sided, you cannot ignore that,” he said. “You don’t always adopt the positions your constituents are expressing. Occasionally, you disagree strongly and you’re willing to stick your neck out politically to take a position. But in most cases, that kind of outpouring, I think, would be decisive.”

Politicians from both parties say they’ve received a multitude of messages, nearly all of them opposing a military strike on Syria.

U.S. Sen. John Boozman’s staff sorted through about 4,000 emails on the Syrian civil war; only 44 of them favored U.S. military action.

U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin said he’s also been bombarded with messages, most of them against intervention. He tracks the raw numbers, but he also tries to gauge the constituents’ level of passion and the strength of their arguments.

“You sort of weigh the substance of what people are saying, but you also weigh the quantity, and you also weigh the intensity,” Griffin, a Little Rock Republican, said. “You don’t just put that in a computer and calculate, ‘OK. This is how I’m going to vote.’ … There’s no set calculus.”

But constituent messages are an important barometer, and the 2nd District congressman said he pays close attention.

“A good representative, regardless of what their final decision on an issue is, will have their finger on the pulse of what’s going on with the people they represent,” Griffin said.

Boozman, also a Republican, says he appreciates messages that haven’t been mass-produced.

“We get form faxes. We get form emails. I pay more attention when a person sits down and takes the time to actually compose an email. Then I know that they’re really interested in the subject.”

Trips back to Arkansas give him another chance to gauge public opinion, he said. He said he collects as much information as he can, gets as many opinions as he can, and then makes a decision. “You weigh all of that and then you just do your very best to do what you think is right.”

Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution and a political science professor at George Washington University, says successful congressmen keep an eye on public opinion.

“Most good members, they really have their fingers on the pulse of their districts and they can get a sense of really the level and intensity of opinion out there on an issue,” she said. “Ultimately members are rewarded for the positions they take.” Or punished, in some instances, if they take unpopular stands on high-profile issues.

“Voters remember positions taken on big important issues,” Binder said. “Members have to be quite careful, tread quite carefully. … On most votes members have a fair amount of leeway, but on big salient votes they often get hemmed in if they’re worried about electoral prospects.”

But it’s hard to get a majority of Congress to take an unpopular position, according to Dan Holler, Heritage Action of America spokesman and former deputy director of Senate relations for the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“Members of Congress, at least ones that are responsive, understand the value of listening to the calls that are coming into their office,” Holler said. “If you have an issue of national prominence, and your constituents are overwhelmingly on one side, it’s going to be very difficult for an elected official to go over to the other side.”

Sometimes principles trump pragmatism, according to former U.S. Rep. Jay Dickey, a Republican who lost his re-election bid shortly after voting to impeach fellow Arkansan Bill Clinton when the latter was president.

“You’ve got to go and get the best knowledge you can. …You’ve got to listen to everybody who objects,” Dickey said. “You’ve got to figure out what’s best for your country and then you’ve got to figure out whether your conscience dictates for you to vote one way or another.”