Email This Post
Ralph Nader Talks Politics With Canadian-Americans
US Presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, delivered a speech in Toronto, Canada yesterday to discuss problems with American politics and to rally support amongst the Americans residing in Canada. My first reaction was: why was Mr. Nader rallying in Canada? Nevertheless, I was enthusiastic to meet the man who allegedly had a role in putting Bush in office in 2000.
The presentation started with a screening of the documentary “An Unreasonable Man”. The first part outlined the history of Mr. Nader as a consumer advocate and his battle with General Motors and other large corporations. It earned a lot of respect from me for Mr. Nader. He stood out as a man standing alongside citizens against the big government-corporation machine battling irresponsible government agencies and breaking down unjust regulations. This distinguished him from the mainstream candidates who merely ‘played the game’ with the machine.
The second part of the video, discussed major problems with the American political system and the nation. The film transitioned nicely into Mr. Nader stepping up on stage as he addressed these issues in person.
Mr. Nader identified the duo-party system, and civic participation being the core issues plaguing the nation today. As a result, America was no longer ‘by the people for the people’, but by and for, large corporations and special interest groups pulling strings of politicians of both parties in the system.
Both the republicans and democrats are working together to keep third-party members from playing the game. US presidential candidates who do not belong to the Republican or Democratic party must collect some 65,000 to 150,000 signatures (depending on the state) from citizens who have not previously voted in the Republican or Democratic primaries within a period of a month or two. The regulation makes it ridiculously difficult for any candidates to emerge from outside the two mainstream parties. To make matters worse, Americans have developed a habit of giving the vote to the candidate most likely to win. Even if one has complete faith in Mr. Nader, if he is believed to be a non-candidate, he will lose numerous votes to a mainstream candidates.
So what’s wrong with the duo-party system? Well, everything. Especially in this era where the two parties show only “micro-differences”. Basically, you can only choose a ‘yes’ and a ‘no’, or if the parties align, only yes, or only no. There is no third option. Duo-party system harvested a symbiosis of corporations and government. Corporations use their power and influence to get the right people in office, who would, in return, set legislations to benefit the corporations.
Civic participation could disassemble this symbiote. Corporations are powerful, but they are outnumbered by general population. If citizens were more engaged with the political scene and capable of directing election results, Congressmen will appease the voters, instead of the corporations and the right men would be in office. He urged citizens to delve into politics as if it’s a hobby (using bird-watching as an example). He sarcastically quoted, “If your grandchildren ask you what you were doing when all this was happening, what are you going to tell them? That you were updating your Facebook profile?” His keen awareness to the social scene of the digital generation was commendable.
The presentation concluded with a Q&A session. There was mention of Guantanamo Bay and the Canadian currently detained; his friend Dennis Kucinich and Congressman Ron Paul, problems with mainstream media, ways to mobilize apathetic citizens, etc.
Perhaps one of the most intriguing questions was, to paraphrase: “Obama did a lot of good for Americans, too. Why should I not support Obama?”
Do people enter Obama rallies and ask Obama why they shouldn’t support McCain? It was a humorous question to me. Instead of laughing at the question, (which I did), Mr. Nader provided a good rebuttal highlighting Obama’s poor records; from supporting the Patriot Act and FISA amendment to his promise to withdraw from Iraq while leaving hundreds of military bases there. He finished his rebuttal with a grave warning “Be prepared to be very disappointed with Obama”, to which I concurred.
All in all, the presentation was more motivational than promotional. It discussed problems facing America but failed to sell resolutions. No proposals of new health-care plan, strategies with Middle East, nor balanced-budget. Perhaps it was not enough to win my vote (yet) but enough to engage me in investigating his policies. It reminded me that changes and revolutions were always sparked by a small number of people.
Related Posts
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Leave your response!