The Autopen and Politics

I work for an elected official, and I must say, the autopen gives me much grief. I (was) very proud to say that in the 5th grade, I received a letter from Bill Clinton, who was serving as President at the time. It just may have been the single most thrilling event of my elementary school career. Even at the age of 10, I was skeptical, and upon investigation, concluded that it had to have been real, because the signature was made of real pen ink.

Imagine my horror when, on my first day of work, I spent 3 hours autopening letters to eagle scouts. Bill Clinton never read my letter. Our connection was fraudulent.

I have come to learn, and myself execute, the political response to constituent mail: a letter drafted by office personnel (and depending on the letter, proof-read by said elected official)...and then the swift glide of the autopen to seal the deal.

But this practice is completely unethical. It is misleading, and it is a lie. Listen little Toby, the President, the Congressmember...whomever...none of them know about how many cookies you sold, your great idea to end the war, or what the hell you did in school. This is a strategy so that you believe your representative has some sort of personal investment in you. S/he does not. But yes, on her/his behalf, the office gives a raisenette of a turd--and you are entitled to know what you are getting.

True, political figures do not have time to send out thousands upon thousands of letters--but that does not legitimize lying. I understand the benefit of sending out awards and letters, but in order to make this practice ethical, such documents should be signed:

From the office of,
(insert fake signature here)

Perhaps this sounds like a trivial issue--and to some extent it is. But I think it is representative of a larger ideological issue: what lengths individuals go to maintain a political image--and how this fake correspondence is so valued that it remains acceptable. And of course, there are those who think the autopen signature is real. I feel for you--I was once in your shoes. And now, I help perpetrate this offense.

From now on, I will refuse to autopen.

Of course, we cannot forgot the outrage against Donald Rumsfeld for (his office) sending condolence letters to the families of killed soldiers--signed by Rummy's autopen. The blogosphere has other opinions on the matter. View of the Republic writes:

"The neo-libs have nothing to accuse Rumsfeld of profesionally, so they go on the "he's a heartless bastard and therefore is unfit to be in charge of the troops" ploy. So what if he is? He's damn good at running the military, so maybe the neo-libs should just get over this auto-pen issue. Would you really feel better knowing that your son died in Iraq...but Rumsfeld hand signed a letter to you? Big whoop."

I think View of the Republic loses validity in his statement, because he is not addressing the actual issue of the autopen--rather taking one isolated example and turning it into partisan warfare. What does this controversy mean? Is the use of the autopen only appropriate within a certain context? Is the autopen acceptable as long as some innocent schmuck thinks the signature is real--or doesn't care either way? Is it okay except for when the subject is someone's death?

My opinion: if you did not write something yourself, do not pretend you did, or mislead your readers.

From the office of,
Vanessa