Every few years I write a column about the United States Postal Service. In 2009 I just about wrote it off. That year the Postal Service faced a $7 billion revenue shortfall, and 700 post offices were slated for closure.

The problem wasn’t inefficiency or mismanagement. The previous year the post office had delivered 212 billion pieces of mail — 46% of the world total — with an on-time delivery rate between 94 and 97%.

Still, mail volume was dropping and the Postal Service appeared to be an inevitable victim of a cultural shift as profound and revolutionary as the one that occurred when the printing press was invented 500 years ago.

The typewritten or handwritten letter was already deeply obsolescent in 2009, and a huge proportion of correspondence — bills, bank statements, advertising — that would have reached us via our mailboxes had already migrated to the internet.

But I wrote another column in 2013 that was more optimistic about the future of the post office. Mail volume had dropped to 175 billion pieces per year, but efficiency was as high as ever.

And even though few people were writing traditional letters in 2013, Americans were still very, very fond of stuff, physical objects that can be held and handled. Online shopping was burgeoning, and the stuff had to arrive at our homes by some method. Many Americans still valued the distinction between a virtual greeting card and a handwritten note and signature by a real person at the bottom of an old-fashioned Valentine’s Day card. Maybe there was hope for the P.O., after all.

Problems and potential

In 2013 I referenced an Esquire article entitled “Do We Really Want to Live Without the Post Office,” a detailed discussion of the problems and potential of the P.O. that is relevant now.

In the article — readily available online — writer Jesse Lichtenstein does the best job that I’ve seen of describing the basic dilemma of the Postal Service: Even though it does not receive taxpayer money, Congress has imposed a set of mandates, obligations and restrictions that virtually guarantee that it will operate at a deficit.

This is probably what I love most about the Postal Service: its capacity and obligation to provide every citizen with the means to connect with every other citizen who resides at any established address in the United States, from midtown Manhattan to the most remote valley in Montana. And always at an affordable, egalitarian price. Everyone pays the same and gets the same excellent service.

Now we are in 2020, and President Donald Trump calls the post office a “joke,” largely because, he asserts, it delivers packages for Amazon at a loss. He declares that he will not help until it quadruples what it charges Amazon.

It’s worth noting that Trump can’t stand Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who owns the Washington Post. Further, it appears that Trump is simply wrong about this. Politifact called his statement about the unprofitability of delivering for Amazon “False,” and the Washington Post gave it four Pinocchios, which equals “whopper.”

This is what Trump doesn’t get: From the beginning the Postal Service was meant to be a service, not a profit center. The Founders established a Postal Service before they established our republic, and for most of our history it has played an important, unsung role in uniting the nation.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.