I wrote my first-ever letter to the editor a couple weeks ago. It was printed by the Isthmus, Madison’s weekly paper, and it was the first time I’d ever been published.
When a friend told me she’d seen my letter, I went through a rapid succession of feelings. The first was pride. My letter had been worthy of publication! Someone had decided I had something important to say!
But more emotions quickly followed: fear, worry, and guilt. I’d felt confident when I’d written my letter, but until now, I hadn’t fully considered what it would feel like to have it out there in the world. Suddenly, it occurred to me that hundreds or even thousands of people might read it—my friends, my colleagues at work, and also many strangers. I was full of self-questioning.
What if I’d said the wrong thing? What if my letter had been a mistake?
I was surprised at how vulnerable it made me feel to be published. But I did feel vulnerable—especially because what I’d said was somewhat harsh.
My letter had been a response to an op-ed that had really bugged me. It was by Larry Kaufmann and was entitled “Defending the Budget Repair Bill.” Kaufmann had written:
This bill is typically described as an effort to strip government workers of collective bargaining rights over pension benefits, which sounds extraordinarily arbitrary and unfair. No one wants their “rights” repealed by government decree.
But how many people know that even before this bill, state law actually required public employees to pay about half the costs of their pensions? The budget repair bill simply eliminates the government’s ability to pick up this tab, as it has agreed to do under collective bargaining agreements with state workers…
What bothered me was that Kaufmann then went on about pensions and the budget for the remainder of the article, presenting a case for how Walker’s fiscal changes are good policy. After that first mention of collective bargaining, he seemed to have forgotten it altogether:
All these factors should be kept in mind when considering whether the budget repair bill is good legislation or the right policy for addressing our state’s challenges. It’s fair to say that hasn’t been the attitude of most protesters, who have reacted emotionally rather than rationally to the proposed changes.
Oh, I felt emotional, all right, after reading this. Kaufmann seems to have meant well—his arguments about fiscal policy seem well-informed, and he talks about getting past demonization of Republicans, getting past what another reporter had called “The Politics of Hate.” But as I wrote in my letter, he had completely missed the point of the protests.
Mine was the first of several responses published the following week:
In “Defending the Budget Repair Bill” (5/27/11), Larry Kaufmann says we should extend peace, love and understanding to Walker, yet demonstrates his own lack of understanding of the bill’s opposition.
Hello? We state workers already agreed to pay more into our pensions; that’s not what the protests were about. Most of us were protesting union-busting, which Walker later admitted will not save the state a penny. We were also protesting Republicans’ myriad attempts to silence us: trying to pass the bill in less than a week, cutting off a public hearing, lying about Capitol damage in order to lock us out, etc.
Walker has no excuse — he knew exactly what he was doing by attaching union-busting to a budget bill. I’m willing to give Kaufmann the benefit of the doubt, though. I hope he’s merely ignorant. If he truly wants to help tone down “the politics of hate,” he’ll need to listen to both sides, not just to Walker.
As I said, I felt vulnerable, worried, and guilty after the initial exhilaration of being published wore off. What would people think of me? I don’t speak sharply too often. I wasn’t used to having my harsh words broadcast so publicly. I felt guilty for lambasting a man I’ve never met, who is probably a very nice person.
This was a good lesson for me. Next time, I’ll do a little more research before writing a hot-headed letter—at least then I’ll know whether my foe deserves a harsh tone.
In the end, though, I still do also feel proud. I stand by what I said about the reason for the protests—as I’ve said before, they were about the unions. And looking back over Kaufmann’s article, I see disdain for the protesters disguised by his seemingly logical tone. I’m indignant at being called “emotional, not rational.”
Bottom line: we all need to talk to each other more, in person, not just in the media. I have the feeling that if Kaufmann had done more of that, his fiscal arguments wouldn’t have sounded so hollow.
