Ralph Nader Speaks on Progressive Change
Forward Article to a Friend
Print Article
Ralph Nader, famous consumer advocate, 2000 Presidential Election spoiler, and one of the “100 Most Influential Americans of All Time” according to The Atlantic Monthly, spoke on Valentine’s Day in Kresge Auditorium. Hosted by the ASSU Speaker’s Bureau, Stanford-in-Government, and the Stanford Law School’s American Constitutional Society, the event drew a large- but under capacity- mix of undergraduates, law students, and community members. In a speech entitled, “There Can Be No Daily Democracy with No Daily Citizenship,” Nader gave a thoughtful, matter-of-fact, and seemingly impromptu talk on civic engagement, academia, and general life philosophy.
Foremost, Nader stressed students’ “moral imperative to lead” through civic engagement and social justice. True to his usual form, Nader delivered this message from the perspective of the iconoclastic outsider, deriding everybody and everything from Republicans, to Democrats, to corporations, to public television, and even his old law school professors.
Before he spoke, however, long-time Nader colleague Professor Alan Morrison of Stanford Law School gave a laudatory introduction, celebrating Nader’s knack for combining both meticulous detail and big-picture vision. Morrison then reflected on Nader’s influence by asking a question: “Who else could draw an auditorium full of students in 1971, who still can in 2007?”
Nader, on the other hand, began his talk on a more sober note aimed at the students in attendance: “In just 15,000 days—2200 weeks—you’ll be 65.” Keeping this in mind, he implored students to use their youth wisely by choosing a life of civic engagement and social progress over material wealth. “There is an epidemic of materialism in this country–and Silicon Valley is a part of it,” Nader posed his fundamental question: “Why can’t people connect the pursuit of happiness with the pursuit of justice?”
He went on to give a laundry list of the world’s injustices, including doom-and-gloom such as “the commercialization of youth . . . corporate crime . . . the disintegration of due process . . . the destruction of the environment . . .” and many more. Connecting these problems to the dominant theme of his career, he blamed corporations: “Name the top 20 problems in the world. Poverty, concentrated land ownership, crooked elections. How many of these are caused by corporations?” (In a reception after his speech, Nader continued his borderline apocalyptic forecast by claiming that the world will be confronting many “major disasters in the next 50 years,” including avian flu.)
He notably found nothing positive to say about America circa 2007. From its “pay or die health care system,” to its two-party political monopoly, he painted a consistently dreary picture. Fittingly, Nader complained most bitterly about America’s lack of a third party culture. Conceding that Republicans and Democrats differ on some isolated issues, he saw more similarities than differences. Namely, he cited both parties’ penchant for pandering to corporate money, the gerrymandering of electoral districts to keep incumbents in office, and the obstruction of third party campaigns.
The state of academia also drew much ire from Nader. He emphasized that action is the key to fostering social justice—but that academia rarely does more than point and analyze society’s ills. “The tragedy of academia is its inability to do anything,” he deadpanned.
He described Stanford students as “living in a bubble” which ultimately discourages civic activity or political passion. He attributed student apathy toward Iraq and other serious issues as the confluence of many factors: lack of civic education prior to college, the “idyllic” lifestyle of elite colleges, the comfort and wealth of the student body, and the “triviality” of modern America.
“We are surrounded by forces of trivia. There is such a thing as too much trivia; too much hedonism; too much entertainment; too much looking at screens. Not enough looking at each other.”
But with these large doses of pessimism, Nader made sure to portray problems as solvable—if students only became motivated enough. Idealism and persistence were the best cures for social ills. One of his most affecting questions was, “What will you tell your grandchildren when they ask, “What were you doing about this?”
Nader’s speech was a display of the traits that have made him so effective for so long: intense earnestness, unbridled idealism, and a distrust of authority, all conveyed with a thoughtful, engaging demeanor. Many students seemed moved by the speech, others apathetic, and a few skeptical. Afterwards, though, as the students filed out, almost everyone agreed that he had made his convictions clear.
And perhaps that is all Nader really wanted anyway: to help the students in attendance find their own convictions. And by doing this—stressing big ideas like individualism, altruism, activism, and just about every other liberal “-ism”—he demonstrated why he manages to pack college auditoriums, not the halls of Congress; why he is ideologically powerful, but, ultimately, politically powerless.
