Today, i woke up early, got a ride to Syracuse, and saw Ralph Nader speak at a regional assembly of the Green party.
It was not at all what i expected.
Considering how most other national political figures do things, I was thinking it would be a big event, with a cheering crowd, and a motorcade, in a TV-friendly venue. I was thinking teleprompters, and media, and security.
Apperantly, thats not how Nader does things.
The Green Party's "regional headquarters," or whatever, was really just a small, nondescript, building downtown, apperantly in the early stages of renovation. There were maybe 20 mismatched folding chairs set up, facing a plain folding table, with a few banners hung behind it. The building didnt even have any heat, and was just a little on the cold side.
We got there somewhat early, early enough to say hello to some people, have some coffee, look over their newspaper, and watch Nader arrive. He pulled up in a plain, ford escort, talking with his driver, and parked on the street with the rest of us. No fanfare, no red carpet, no entrance from backstage. Just said hello to the organizers, walked over behind the table, and started speaking. I dont even remember if anyone introduced him.
Throughout his talk, he barely mantioned himself or his campaign. He was talking about us, to us, telling us how we could bring about real social changes, beginning on a local level. He started of with some historical examples, saying that no movement has won anything without organizing, and that although we might not realize it, we were working in a historical context. History was in our favor, even if the existing structures and authorities weren't. We needed to start small, start local, by talking to people, finding out what issues mattered to them, and organizing around causes that were both important and winable.
He said that one of the biggest problems activist movements had was letting their worthy objectives hide the fact that their methods were often ineffective. He said, for example, that a rally is not enough by itself. He claimed that the "heat" it would presumably put on politicians would not simply "radiate" over and force them into action, that they must be publically confronted with such issues, and that they could simply wait for the movement to run out of momentum if there was no way to hold them personally accountable for their actions.
Also, he said, if you or your organization does somehow get a chance to meet with an elected official, you must again hold them personally accountable. If, for example, you have 15 minutes to meet with them and present your case, most people give a 15 minute speech, the official nods in agreement, and then you leave, and nothing has changed. You were just "nodded out of office." Instead, you must present your case in 2 or 3 minutes, and spend the rest of the time asking said official what they plan to do about it, and making sure they agree with your arguments.
Overall, the only refrence he made to himself or his campaign was in the context of making our political process open to more parties. He said that in most other western democracies, there are at least 5 viable political parties. That in this last election, only 5 (ish? i dont remember the number) congressional seats changed hands, and that 95% of districts had a clear majority for one party or another, to the point where the other party often didnt even put up a serious campaign. He talked about how the democratic party was markedly undemocratic in its practice towards his campaign, trying to keep them off the ballot. Furthermore, he said, the process for getting on the ballot in the first place, and for getting on the national debates, were set up specifically to hinder 3rd parties.
Another interesting point, he said that while the democratic party is trying to keep a 2-party system by keeping 3rd parties out, that the republican party is trying to create a 1-party system, by keeping 2nd parties out. This was actually a minor point, made almost in passing, but i thought it was interesting enough to pass on.
finally, he concluded somewhat like he started, by encouraging us to be leaders, and to remember that we're not as alone as we seem, especially in a historical context. he then added that one of the most important jobs of grassroots leaders was to keep people from getting discouraged, and therefore to preserve the movement through any setbacks it may face.
On the drive back, i thought the most about this final point. I didnt realize it until i saw him speak, but nader is an old man by now. I thought about all the setbacks he's seen through the years, all the times his movements have been beaten back, and all the heat he's taken for his unpopular positions and tactics throughout his career. For him to come to some old run-down building to talk to 15 people about not getting discouraged is in this context truely inspiring.
I then thought about what i had just seen in a historical context, and then it hit me. Nader is the Debs of our generation.