Ralph Nader’s Speech

Emily, Professor Coffman, and I went to go see Ralph Nader speak last night. It was a little surprising to see that the theater where we were was only about half-full. Maybe it wasn’t too well promoted. Anyway, it was a very interesting speech.

Lucky for me, I taped it. Unlucky for you, I’m having extraordinary difficulty uploading it to the internet for a variety of reasons so you’ll have to settle for this:

UPDATE: Parts 1 and 2 are now up

Update #2: So here it is, after 2 days and several excruciating hours of editing it into 10 minute chunks to meet Youtube’s size requirement. The 4th one is choppy as hell and missing about 5 minutes because my battery died no less than 3 times.

Update 3: Some people seem to be having problems with the videos. I clicked on them once, and couldn’t get them, then I clicked on them again and I got them and I’m not having a problem anymore. If you can’t get them, here are some of the comments on technology I was referring to in my post, though they really pervaded the whole speech:

Nader: …They [the Democratic candidates for president] don’t even mention that 18,000 people, the equivalent of six 9/11′s, die in this country because they can’t afford health care? In the land of the free, home of the brave? Update your profile on Facebook some more before we wake up! And take back our country! Our country! Our future!

[Applause]

I see a lot of young people here, from DePaul and other colleges and universities. I wonder about them. I wonder about them. They’re sensitive, they want a better country, but how do they use their time? Your generation listens to music six times more than our generation. Six times. There’s only 24 hours in a day. Text messaging, cell phones. “Where are you?” “Where are you?” a minute later. “Where are you?” five seconds-five nanoseconds later. Gossip, silly talk, trivial talk, while your future’s being torn from you.”

Then after that he just rips on 20 year-olds for like 5 more minutes.

My thoughts on the speech are kind of long, so just click “read more” below the videos to read them.

part 1

part 2

part 3

part 4

I thought it was sort of a typical Ralph Nader type of speech. One thing that jumped out at me that reminded of my previous post: Ralph Nader does not like the kids these days. Some of his comments might be clipped out of the tape above, but he was ripping on facebook, cellphones, and what he called “virtual reality,” which apparent;y means spending too much time on the computer-websites on the internets and such.

This sort of confirmed my thought earlier that times have just sort of passed Nader by. The internet is the new frontier for political activism, whether its meetup, youtube, or even, yes, facebook. Did Nader miss the youtube debates? He kept calling in his speech for people to organize and for direct democracy, without realizing that the internet is probably the most democratizing force in the world today. People are doing exactly what Ralph Nader was calling for right now, over the internet.

Just as one example, Howard Dean, who largely shared many of Nader’s ideals and whose campaign embraced the internet like no other before, created a network of supporters nationwide “the Deaniacs” who used the internet to facilitate real-world change. And their group is still together today, at democracyforamerica.com, still fighting for those ideas which the campaign was based on. And the liberal blogosphere has arguably effected more positive change over the past 5 years than Ralph Nader. Taking back Congress in 2006 would have been much more difficult if the national fundraising network created by blogs like dailykos and mydd was not in place. Just weeks ago, a liberal challenger in Maryland named Donna Edwards defeated a 12-term Democratic incumbent, Rep. Al Wynn, based almost entirely on the support she recieved from people ll over the country who have never even stepped foot in Maryland.

Another interesting thing, somewhat related, was a story he told about going to an Al Gore book signing and standing in line with everyone else. When he got up to see Gore, the former Vice President jumped up and shook his hand and was very friendly. Nader asked him, how does it feel to be out of the White House? And Gore said “I’m free!” Nader intended this as a point about how the never-ending pursuit of money in politics forces you to be silent on issues you care about, for fear of offending donors.

But isn’t there some irony there? Gore was liberated by getting away from politics and he has arguably accomplished more now that he has gotten out than when he was in. Shouldn’t this same lesson apply to Nader? Doesn’t he seem to be trapped by his “campaign” for president? One wonders if he would not be able to have a more positive impact if he gave up his tiresome candidacy and instead, like Gore, tried to affect change from the outside. After all, when he wrote Unsafe at Any Speed, which led to a whole host of positive changes in consumer regulations, he was not running for anything or involved in politics. His campaign looked pretty desperate and pathetic itself with the alleged “singer” Justin Jeffre, of 98 degrees, begging for money.

What if Nader didn’t have to beg for an extra fifty dollars, and could just focus on his reforms, and not politics? Or what if he tried to build a fundraising infrastructure over the internet, a la Dean or Obama?

One final point on fundraising-when Nader says that the other candidates are taking money from “corporations,” that is outright dishonesty. Donations from corporations have been illegal for over 30 years. What it really is is people who work for a certain corporation giving the candidates money. This is because on contributor forms you have to list your employer. I work in a cafeteria and I bought Ralph Nader’s book. That doesn’t mean that “the food industry supports Nader.” That’s ridiculous. He’s on more solid ground when he talks about lobbyists and PACs, but Obama, at least, does not take money from those groups.

Now talk about burying the lead here, but there were some very good parts of Nader’s speech. His best point was about the anti-slavery movement, and something along the lines of, what if people had only chosen the “least bad” candidate back then? That’s an excellent point, because Lincoln’s Republican party started out as a third-party alternative to the Whigs and Democrats. However, ever since then, its undeniably true that third-parties have largely been spoliers. Nader even acknowledged this at the beginning of his speech when he was talking about the antiquated electoral college, and how it makes it necessary for people to be practical and choose between the two parties. I’m not quite sure how Nader can acknowledge this fact and yet still run for president.