Okay guys, I know you all mean well, but this is the exact opposite of what you want to do, and to understand why, you have to understand something fundamental about the way conservatives think about the government.
Basically, a conservative-leaning person’s reaction to a government program being inefficient and not providing useful services is not “let’s give it more money and maybe it’ll start working better.” It’s “I guess it’s a waste of money so let’s get rid of it.”
Which is actually not that out-there. It is, on the whole, an article of faith on the left that giving more money to an agency is going to make it work better and do more. The right already thinks of the government as wasteful and useless (thanks, Fox News) so they think that giving them more money will just result in them continuing to do exactly what they’re already doing except costing more money. (To understand this, think about whether you feel that giving the police more money would help fill the gaps in the areas where they’re not currently doing much … or if the toxic environment is too entrenched to fix with more money and we’d still have exactly what we have now except it would be sucking down even more money that could be better used elsewhere.)
Unfortunately conservative politicians have weaponized this into a by now well-established cycle to get rid of programs they don’t like. It goes like this:
- Cut funding and/or put someone incompetent in charge of it, until it’s lost so much of its budget and/or is run so badly that it can hardly do anything anymore.
- Point out that it’s not really doing much of anything.
- Get rid of it.
And meanwhile keep HAMMERING the point on Fox News etc. that the government is wasteful and inefficient and does nothing useful. Every example they see of government incompetence is just going to drive the point home a little harder.
We are currently WATCHING them do this to the post office.
If you point out to your conservative elderly relatives that the post office is inefficient, keeps losing mail, and basically is not providing a useful service, you’re helping out with #2. You’re pointing out that the post office isn’t doing their job ANYWAY, so your grandparents are going to think, why give them more money to continue not doing their job?
What you want to do is point out how many things they or their friends currently rely on the post office for. You don’t want them cursing the post office for not delivering their precious grandbaby’s nonexistent mail, you want them thinking about things the post office does WELL.
You want them to be Team Post Office, not Team “Gosh the Post Office Can’t Do Anything These Days.”
If they get their meds delivered by mail, if that’s how they get their Medicare check, if they pay the rent by mail instead of having to drive across town and drop it in a box, if they get magazines delivered, if they wait all year for Aunt Jane’s annual holiday letter with pictures of the family … POINT THAT OUT. Honestly, there’s no other demographic that’s such fertile soil for being Team Post Office; between having grown up in a pre-email era and being a little more isolated due to age, they probably use it a lot more than their grandchildren do.
But all the useful things it does are so well established that they’re largely invisible; it’s all been going on in the background for so long that no one pays much anymore. And they’re certainly not hearing about it on Fox News. So bring it up. Point out all the things they wouldn’t have anymore if the post office goes away. Actually DO send them mail! If they get a few postcards a year from Precious Grandchild, then all of a sudden losing the post office means something.