X Close

How mailmen saved rural America Amazon will never be neighbourly

“We, as public servants, safeguard the integrity of our nation’s Government.” Photo by ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images

“We, as public servants, safeguard the integrity of our nation’s Government.” Photo by ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images


November 25, 2024   7 mins

“You have to be a neighbour to have a neighbour.” That’s Mark Jamison’s mantra — and he should know. Until he retired, after all, the 68-year-old was the postmaster in Webster, a small town enveloped by the mist and hollers of North Carolina’s Great Smoky Mountains. And while he surely dealt with letters and parcels, townsfolk brought Jamison their troubles too. The title of postmaster, he says, “gives you some heft” in a quiet place like Webster, where he was the only representative of the federal government. Between sorting mail, that authority meant he also wrote money orders for people who couldn’t read, or else deciphered tax statements. Sometimes, he just offered advice to the downtrodden or simply loosened the jars of old ladies driving home from the store.

And while many in Webster came specifically to see Jamison, they also used his post office to visit each other. So, as their postmaster, he installed benches, a community bulletin board, and a library. I ask him to explain himself; Jamison aw-shucked. “I figure if folks are talking to each other, it is hard to hate each other.” In truth, though, the Webster postmaster was merely fulfilling Title 39 of the US Code: “The United States Postal Service’s (USPS) purpose is to bind the nation together”. Lord knows that, in the aftermath of a brutal election, America needs some neighbourly ties. And Lord knows that few organisations do that as well as the Post Office, even if its triumphs hint at state failure elsewhere.

By sheer numbers alone, USPS is an American giant. With 33,904 post offices, it’s burrowed into every nook and cranny of the nation, from Kaktovik in Alaska to Ochopee in the Florida swamps. The country’s single biggest non-military institution, every day its army of 525,469 employees delivers mail to 167 million unique addresses. That’s even as USPS retains the so-called “Postal Principle” — meaning users pay the same fee no matter how far their package travels. No wonder Americans love the Post Office, with an eye-popping 91% of us viewing it favourably. By comparison, 29% of Americans support public schools, which is about equal to the 32% of citizens who have a positive opinion of God. “The Post Office is the last bastion,” says Erica Etelson, co-founder of the Rural-Urban Bridge Initiative. “It is still something everyone loves”.

For Professor Richard John, this isn’t incidental. As the Columbia professor and post office expert has written, the Founders always “intended the Postal Service to be a pillar of the republic, squeezing together millions of Americans, urban and rural, for the common good”. Created by Ben Franklin and the Continental Congress, the US Constitution explicitly calls for “Post Offices and Post Roads”. But, more than that, John says it’s the Post Office Act of 1792 that matters most. Because Congress deemed access to newspapers central to an informed public, the legislation kept postal rates low. This, John explains, ensured political parties wouldn’t dominate the news — while, as an apolitical institution, the Post Office could “follow the nation and stay close to the people”.

The Postal Service most certainly stayed close to the expanding republic. Between 1790 and 1840, the number of post offices exploded from just 75 to over 13,000. A few years after the Civil War, the service was operating over 76,000 offices. That, says Cameron Blevins, made it the largest “communication network” on earth. As the associate professor at the University of Colorado Denver explains, this was basically a function of 19th century expansionism. As the pioneers forced their way west, and Manifest Destiny rushed Americans from sea to shining sea, post connected the “whole nation together”. And so it proved in practice too. Consider Arizona’s Supai post office as an example. Established in 1896, it connected the Grand Canyon’s miners and the Havasupai nation of Native Americans to the wider world. 128 years later, mules still haul the outgoing mail three hours up steep, sandy passes to the next post at Peach Springs. Ten years after Supai’s founding, in 1906, free rural delivery integrated even more Americans. Just before the outbreak of the First World War, the Post Office started delivering parcels, further connecting people to the bounties of American life.

Public respect for the Postal Service reached further heights during the Great Depression, when FDR expanded its footprint still further. In truth, though, its acclaim during the first half of the last century isn’t really about numbers. In the Thirties, three-quarters of all Americans believed the federal government would “do the right thing almost always or most of the time”. Far from being naïve dupes, this civic faith was fired by depression and war, together creating remarkable social solidarity. At the core of this social trust were institutions, like the Post Office, that for Blevins represent the veritable cartilage and guts of the nation. “The US Post,” he says, “is a model of what an effective government could be.”

That, in turn, made Americans have more faith not just in far-off bureaucrats — but also in each other. For Americans born in the first half of the last century, neighbourliness and social trust flourished. Buttressing this sensibility was New Deal liberalism. More than a pastiche of programmes, the New Deal was grounded in a principle that Americans look beyond narrow self-interest and towards the common good. FDR, for his part, understood the Post Office was the one federal entity Americans most used, leveraging it as a tool of social solidarity.

“FDR understood the Post Office was the one federal entity Americans most used, leveraging it as a tool of social solidarity.”

During the Second World War, for instance, the Post Office offered “Victory Mail” to soldiers deployed overseas. Through the so-called V-Mail scheme, the Army Postal Service connected millions of troops to their families and loved ones — all free of charge. At home, the Post Office served as a hub for wartime information. Community boards posted draft posters, air raid instructions, and information about federal schemes. Postal workers added the sale of war bonds and war stamps to their duties.

It’s little surprise that public regard for the Postal Service reached its zenith in the early post-war era. As Richard John notes, the humble post office commanded so much respect that it’s used as a major plot device in the 1947 Christmas classic Miracle on 34th Street. “Santa Claus exists because the Post Office says so,” John explains. “It had unassailable credentials”.

In 1970, the Post Office’s golden age came to a screeching halt. A confluence of forces — postal worker strikes; delivery inefficiencies; Richard Nixon — resulted in the Postal Reorganisation Act. This transformed the Post Office Department into the United States Postal Service (USPS). The Postmaster General was moved out of the cabinet and into a boardroom, even though the new “postal corporation” remains a public service. Blevins calls this new creature a Frankenstein monster. “It is expected to provide a universal service,” he says, “but it is not funded to do so”.

In 1975, Americans encountered Frankenstein. A deep recession spurred massive postal deficits. To cover costs, bureaucrats planned to close 12,000 post offices — mostly in rural areas. Popular uproar forced them to scrap the plan. But the situation has hardly remained stable. With the profit motive now king, postage stamp prices have typically been raised three or four times a decade since 1970. From the turn of the millennium, meanwhile, the cost of sending a first-class letter has increased 18 times, even as the number of USPS employees has been cut almost in half. That’s unsurprisingly led to shuttered branches, shortened opening hours, and a delivery window for First Class letters that’s almost doubled.

Not, of course, that post offices have suffered alone here. On the contrary, the squeeze on USPS has been witnessed across the public sector and beyond. Ronald Reagan’s 1980 victory was merely a symptom of a sharp collapse in social solidarity. While Reagan’s neoliberals cut budgets aimed at the collective good, the proportion of unionised jobs had already fallen from a third in the Fifties to a quarter by 1980. Membership in civic clubs, from the Red Cross to the PTA, collapsed too. Unsurprisingly, time devoted to informal socialising spiralled downward. The ties that bind, from the Post Office to the coffee klatsch, withered.

This collapse in unifying institutions has affected Americans psychologically. These days, and in a far cry from the halcyon days of the New Deal, just 2% of Americans believe the federal government does the right thing “just about always”. That, of course, begs the question: amid so much cynicism, so much disdain for the powers-that-be, how is it that USPS has retained its place in the hearts of the nation? Ironically, and especially in rural areas, the answer might have something to do with the decline of public institutions generally.

For while, in 1940, Americans in the hills of Appalachia or the flat lands of Nebraska would have counted on the Rural Electrification Administration for power, or the Farm Home Administration for loans, to say nothing of churches and social clubs — for thousands of isolated communities the post office is all that’s left. It hardly helps, Jacobs says, that rural Americans rely on USPS far more than their urban peers. “There is material dependency,” he says, not least when even Amazon upon the USPS for unprofitable “last mile” deliveries right across rural America.

Certainly all this — the way post offices tie Americans both to their rulers and each other — helps explain the abiding power of folks like Mark Jamison. But so too, surely, does their individual hard work. As postmaster, after all, Jamison lived next door to his office. At night, he sat on the front porch strumming his guitar, his five dogs all there at his side. Neighbours would stop and seek his counsel. “I drew the line at getting packages at 10pm,” Jamison says. But anyone in Webster who needed a neighbour had one in their postmaster.

It’s something that’s becoming rarer every year. Social solidarity begins with civic society and ends with private friendships. In the 1830s, Alexis de Tocqueville was gobsmacked by Americans and their unerring sociability. But since 2000, the time Americans devote to socialising has collapsed by 30%. In 1990, nearly half of all Americans reported having five or more close friends. Today, slightly less than a quarter can say the same, even as 12% have no close pals at all.

That reality is surely true in Webster, North Carolina, a place that may yet lose even more. The town still has a building called a post office — but budget cuts mean it no longer has a postmaster. Now that Jamison has retired, there are no plans to replace him. Ultimately, then, the story of the post office speaks to a wider human disconnect. Those ties that bind, from postmasters up, are tattered and frayed. And without common places to meet, and chat, and get their jars opened, Americans have simply quit being neighbours. “I wish more neighbours trusted more,” Jamison says. “But they have good reason not to.”


Jeff Bloodworth is a writer and professor of American political history at Gannon University

jhueybloodworth

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

16 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago

I do miss the old days when the mailman delivered to the door.

More and more communities, at least here in South Texas, have community mailboxes near the entrance of the community or at various locations in larger, more sprawling subdivisions. No opportunity anymore to say hi or thanks to the mailman.

Rather than being a point of connection it’s just another disconnect as our society advances (?).

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 month ago

“Amazon will never be neighborly”? What on earth does that subtitle have to do with this essay? Amazon wasn’t even mentioned.

Brett H
Brett H
1 month ago

Unherd is staffed by idiots.

Tim Quinlan
Tim Quinlan
1 month ago
Reply to  Brett H

If it is staffed by idiots, is that not also an unflattering reflection of the readership?

Peter B
Peter B
1 month ago
Reply to  Tim Quinlan

No. We don’t write the article titles. Which are increasingly misleading. I’d hate to be an author for one of these articles and find a completely misleading title has been slapped on it. I’ve yet to detect any evidence of UnHerd editors improving an article. But sadly plenty of subtracting value, like here.

Brett H
Brett H
1 month ago
Reply to  Tim Quinlan

Oh, very witty. We pay for a subscription, we are customers, we express our disappointment in the product. That’s how it works out there in the marketplace. Because someone makes a complaint about the quality of a shirt they bought that is below quality doesn’t make them the same as the poorly made shirt.

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 month ago

Well it is actually!

IATDE
IATDE
1 month ago

“There is material dependency,” he says, not least when even Amazon upon the USPS for unprofitable “last mile” deliveries right across rural America.
Please pay attention.

As to what the author means, the postal delivery in Webster had a name and a face and was actually a neighbor to those he delivered mail to. Amazon, while delivering, will always be transactional and often faceless.

Brett H
Brett H
29 days ago
Reply to  IATDE

Yes, briefly mentioned, but not in the sense of having a place in the story in relation to the headline. Nor do I see the author saying that “Amazon, while delivering, will always be transactional and often faceless” when the name is only mentioned in relation your above comment about delivery. That’s an angle you’ve given the story.
And telling someone to”pay attention” is pretty arrogant and unnecessary .

IATDE
IATDE
28 days ago
Reply to  Brett H

Apparently it is not unnecessary, if I may use a double negative.
Amazon being nameless and faceless is not an angle I have “given the story”. It is a repeating and repeatable fact and is in fact a feature, not a bug, of the Amazon last mile delivery system. As the recipient of certainly hundreds and possibly thousands of Amazon parcels, I have seen the delivery person perhaps 5 times. 3 times I saw their faces, 2 times their backs as they walked away from my door.
When you talk to your postman, if you do, it is likely because you expect to see them again and that they will continue to have an impact on whether you get your mail correctly and on time.
There is no point in talking to your Amazon delivery driver other than a “thank you” shouted at their back if you feel inclined to recognize their service to you.
They may or may not be the person delivering the next parcel. They may or may not be employed by Amazon next month. And they certainly have no ability to impact their own organization by taking any message “back to the office”.
There is a distinct difference in the manner in which the two organizations perform the same function. Both have advantages, and I am happy to be a customer of both. But they are different.

ralph bell
ralph bell
1 month ago

An example of how technicanological changes have broken connections within communities.

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
1 month ago

Hmm ….. a thoughtful and surprisingly optimistic article!

Tony Price
Tony Price
1 month ago

No doubt Emperor Elon will close a lot more offices in the name of Government Efficiency!

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 month ago

The author hits the nail on the head when he blames the privatization of the USPS for the problem. Now the organization has all the problems of a government institution and all the problems of a major corporation at the same time. As a quasi-private institution USPS has gone in the direction the rest of corporate America in paying the absolute minimum for their employees while giving them the maximum possible amount of work. This has led to an institution whose employees are at best about as competent, friendly, or motivated as your average McDonald’s worker. Usually, they’re actually much worse because it’s harder to fire a postal worker than a fast food clerk owing to their quasi-public status. It’s the worst of both worlds.

Here’s some food for thought. Our mail delivery person will refuse to deliver mail if there is a car parked slightly in front of or behind the mailbox. They literally assert that they must be able to pull their car over to the box, drop the mail, and continue on their way without having to shift into reverse, let alone actually leave their vehicle. I have experienced this phenomenon across multiple districts, leading me to believe it is official policy. Not that the employees have any great universal affection for their employer. In the US, the phrase ‘going postal’ refers to someone having an unusually violent fit of anger and rage towards some antagonistic organization or person. The phrase originates from a number of high profile incidents during the privatization era when postal workers expressed their frustration to their employers in less than peaceful ways. Waiting times at the remaining post offices are so long that it has become a cliche. God help you if you have to go to the postal counter during the months of November and December. All this so consumers can pay a price that is barely any less expensive than the commercial delivery services.

The Post Office’s chief customers, the people who actually keep this scheme going, such as it is, are the government itself and an array of corporations who use the mail as a source of cheap advertising. The government uses the USPS for the purpose of sending social security checks and other such official documents. This also includes quasi-public services like water, electrical, gas, and sewer bills. The failure of these organizations to completely transition to electronic formats is a function of the universality of the mail system, organizational inertia, and the hostility of a certain segment of older citizens to these changes. These forces reinforce and perpetuate one another. Even as the older generation expires, there are always more, usually the poorest, still relying on the mail because it’s basically free on the receiving end. That cost structure also makes the USPS the only way for the government and its satellite services to reach people without imposing costs. There are many laws and regulations that require wasteful paper notifications be sent because internet access isn’t quite universal.

The second major driver of the postal service are corporations that send various sorts of direct mail advertising, either to current customers seeking to prompt new purchases, to prospective customers according to algorithms similar to those used by social media, or simply spammed to entire cities or districts, a sort of commercial economic carpet bombing. Credit card companies, insurance carriers, banks, healthcare providers, telecommunications carriers, are among the biggest offenders, but everyone gets in on this right down to local small businesses. There are companies whose sole purpose and economic activity is to assist small to medium sized businesses with targeted direct mail advertising. All this is sustained ultimately by taxpayer dollars, doubly so since the government is easily the biggest USPS customer. 90% or more of the daily mail falls into one of these two categories.

One additional note, the closing of rural post offices which the author mentions has led to some truly ridiculous inefficiencies. While it is a cost cutting measure on its face, there remain questions as to the true efficiency gains. The greatest cost savings come from closing local ‘end of the line’ offices in the tiniest communities, but that hasn’t been the limit of the cost cutting measures. There have also been less obviously efficient cuts such as cutting the number of regional sorting centers. Thus, if I wanted to mail a package or send a letter to the next county two or three miles from here, my letter would have to travel about 1.5 hours to the nearest regional postal sorting center in another state where it would be sorted, then sent back over the same journey. The price of gasoline is low enough that this ridiculous system actually probably is economically efficient… for now. It’s rather a similar situation to how we send billions of pounds of raw materials across the ocean to be assembled into retail goods in China and then back. From a purely economic standpoint in the short to medium term it’s technically economically efficient, despite wasting God knows how many tons of the finite supply of fossil fuels that exist. Over the longer term, well, it doesn’t take an economist to see the problems.

At the end of the day, the modern USPS is a governmental obligation that benefits the taxpayer very little. It has never turned a real profit and likely never will. The rates for parcel shipping are barely any lower than the commercial carriers and in most cases, have longer delivery times. Almost no private organization that ships things uses the USPS because private companies value reliability and service and the bulk rates charged by UPS and FedEx for high volume customers are even closer to USPS prices. There have been proposals to limit mail delivery to only a few days a week to cut costs, but these all tend to run into opposition from either the post office itself, the older cohort of voters who still remember the ‘good ole days’ the author describes, companies who like the subsidized advertising, postal employees who would face wage cuts and/or layoffs, opportunistic politicians trying to score political points, or some combination of the above. I’m of the opinion that the organization should be done away with in its entirety and for whatever legally required paper mail remains can be handled by one of the highly successful and highly efficient private carriers, probably UPS as their unified and unionized corporate structure makes them slightly more reliable than their counterparts. I’m not sure exactly how UPS would square this with their existing business, but I’m near certain we’d end up with a better quality system and pay less for it. The author has a lovely sentimentality for bygone days, but the world does not stop for the sake of nostalgia. Moving into the future always necessitates leaving some good things behind. Treasuring the memories is all well and good but trying to reclaim the past is usually a fool’s errand.

Gordon Arta
Gordon Arta
1 month ago

And there used to be lamplighters, nightsoil collectors, and the rest. Technology rendered them redundant, as it is doing to mailmen. But it also offers real opportunities for recovering ‘community’. Working from home keeps ‘information workers’ in their localities, with non-commuting hours and expense freed to be spent locally. Take your lunchbreak round the corner, with neighbours and friends, instead of a soulless city coffee bar. And joining farm and roadworkers in the process. Global connectivity also offers local community connectivity, networking communities with ‘virtual presence’ in town or village hubs. Look forward to opportunities and what can be gained, rather than hankering back to what was lost and can’t be regained.

Michael Semeniuk
Michael Semeniuk
1 month ago

Jamison seems like a nice guy. But go to a big urban post office and you won’t get Jamison and personal service – you’ll get long lines and disinterested, hooded-eyed union workers taking their sweet time to “serve” you. Whether or not an item gets delivered to its destination is a crapshoot.
I don’t need roooosevelt’s gleischaltung to make acquaintances. Or not, it’s not the government’s business.