Stop thinking in terms of economic issues such as profit and loss, says a historian specializing in the American Revolution -- the postal service is a civic institution, not a business:
Understanding the core mission of the Post Office -- as part of a communications infrastructure for political debate and civic participation -- should lead us to reframe the questions we ask about the future of the USPS. Making changes to the USPS's structure are clearly necessary in order to ensure its ability to meet its obligations. But the historical context should lead us to ask much larger questions about government's role in protecting the free circulation of information.
In the 18th century, the government committed itself to guaranteeing the free flow of information throughout the nation as part of a project to ensure mass participation in civic life, linking the Post Office with the protection of a free press. The decline in mail volume points to a certain inevitability about the commercial success of the USPS. But more broadly we must carefully consider the value of publicly owned, freely available channels of communication. Should the Post Office cease to exist, we will lose the last public guarantor of free communication in the United States.
OK, historical context. I get it. But how can you write an entire article about the desperate need for change without saying a single word about what brought us to this point -- namely, that the precipitous drop in mail volume was caused by the mass migration to email. Maybe because that would challenge his central point that we still need the post office as "the last public guarantor of free communication" in the United States? If your core function is being handled very nicely elsewhere, historical context is not enough to justify your continued existence. There has never been a freer flow of information than there is right now.
