Note: this is simulcast on my personal blog, but since this particular entry seemed like it'd be particularly interesting to the crowd here and something that you're not going to hear elsewhere I figured I'd post it here too.
Okay, it was closer to 2 hours and 45 minutes. Still, it was a lot of Nader.
Consumer advocate and serial presidential candidate Ralph Nader spoke at the University of Rochester today (or actually yesterday as of the time of this writing). Slamming Bush, pushing Linux, and justifying his choice to run again in 2004, Nader spoke well and entertained the crowd. His actual planned speech, which took a bit over an hour, was almost a sort of consumer advocacy pep rally. If you're at all familiar with his history or his stances you've probably heard it all before: consumers need to be informed, they need to be empowered to hold corporations accountable, the whole deal. Still, it was very interesting to see him actually speak on these issues, as he's obviously well informed himself and a quite effective speaker.
After his planned speech he accepted questions. I was sitting up in the balcony and as such could not participate in the mad dash to get in line behind the microphone to ask questions. When over a dozen people got in line and when it became obvious that he was taking his time giving his answers, I thought he'd only answer the first few. Well, I was wrong: he answered all but the last one or two.
Many of the questions were predictable, and a few were just downright stupid. Several of the questions regarded the 2004 election (a topic Nader did not bring up himself in his speech), and he eloquently defended his decision to run again, effectively responding to the "spoiler" argument both by questioning the veracity of it and by reaffirming the fundamental right to run for office. As he joked, if it was John Kerry speaking would anybody ask him if he was worried that he was taking away votes from Ralph Nader?
Most of the time, though, Nader focused on what we, as the leaders of the next generation, could and should do to improve society. I realize that phrasing it like that makes it sound like an after-school special, but I assure you that Nader was able to discuss the topic without making me think about "The More You Know."
He didn't play favorites either, criticizing the administration of the University of Rochester itself and encouraging students to organize. He also cited many examples of corporate wrongdoing spanning his entire career. He concluded that the words "crime", "welfare", and "regulation", while they make us think about the streets, poor people, and government respectively, should each really make us think about corporations. Corporations commit more crime (both in terms of dollar value and violence), receive more welfare, and effectively enact more regulation (through restrictive contracts that they refuse to negotiate) than, well, anyone or anything else.
Nader's answer, generally, is that the consumers need to be informed. He cited the examples of car safety and cigarettes as cases where consumers got wise to the situation and it forced industries to change. The consumer can serve as a counterbalance to the raw capitalist aims of corporations. At one point he joked that capitalism will last forever because socialism will always be there to bail it out.
He also engaged in a bit of crowd pleasing, which was really quite entertaining. Taking a few easy swipes at characters such as George Bush and Rush Limbaugh, he got the crowd laughing and applauding many times. Of course he did not forgive Democrats either, but he did say that he has met with Kerry and will meet with Kerry again. When asked why, he said to work together to beat Bush.
Regarding Bush, he noted that George W. Bush's grandfather was his congressman for a period. He said he was a good man who was responsive and opened up congressional records when requested. He then cracked a joke about how it seems that the cognitive ability of the Bush's has diminished markedly through the generations.
And don't forget about Linux. Nader was questioned about DRM and such (the recent UR-Napster deal was mentioned) and he responded by eloquently summarizing the ill effects of the Microsoft monopoly. He then complimented and essentially plugged Linux, noting that it was the only thing "keeping Microsoft up at night."
One of the most amusing parts was when a questioner angrily suggested that Nader return what he was paid to speak to the university as not everyone at the school agrees with him. Some started to boo the questioner but Nader silenced them and said he liked answering these sorts of questions. Though Nader didn't bother to point out the huge fallacy inherent in this reasoning (it's impossible for the school to hire a speaker that everyone will agree with, so by that reasoning all speakers should be unpaid), he did respond by saying that the money he was being paid, as well as almost all money he earns, goes to any number of good causes (charities, voter information services, etc.).
So, all in all I enjoyed the event a good deal. My vote in November will still almost certainly go to Kerry (I would vote for Nader if he ran for a smaller office, which is what I think he should do: move to a liberal area that likes him such as Oregon, and run for congressman or governor or something), but I do not fault Nader for running and feel that he has done and is continuing to do many good things for society.
Addendum: I figured I'd add a few of his points regarding his not being a spoiler, even though I didn't mention them on my own site, as the people here are more likely to be highly critical of Nader than those who frequent my site.
Regarding 2000, his response was that Gore won and that you can't blame the Greens for the Republican's stealing the election. That, and with a margin so thin, many factors could have decided it: why not blame the quarter million Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush? Or the Democratic governor of Miami who decided to have a vacation during the election and didn't bother to engage in any of the usual "get out the vote" stuff?
Regarding 2004, he first quoted a number of statistics and arguments that he will actually not really be just stealing votes from the Dems. There are disgruntled conservatives who vote for him too (the real kind though, not "compassionate" or "neo" sorts), and there are people who vote for him when he runs but wouldn't be motivated to show up to vote at all if he didn't. He also argued that he would primarily be campaigning against Bush (as I said in the entry itself he is apparently working with Kerry about this). He also discussed how he'd love for the Dems to pick up his stances and take his voters from him: that's essentially why he's doing this in the first place. And he also talked about the right to run, a right that is important not to forget.
Anyway, as I said above I'm not voting for Nader come November, but I do respect his choice to run and his many accomplishments. You're welcome to have a differing opinion, though.