Jabs from a Punchline

I had no idea that Ralph Nader was going to speak in East Lansing (just a few blocks from our apartment) when I rented the documentary about him, An Unreasonable Man, two weeks ago. It was total chance. If you never payed much attention to politics before Nader, 74, made his first presidential bid in 1992 (as a write-in candidate in two states for "none of the above"), the film provides context past his reputation either as a spoiler or a joke. It also addresses the fact that he for years refused to run for president, doing so finally when he thought it was his only option to create the kind of populist change he wanted. He's on the ballot in 45 states this year; 11 more than in 2004.

Nader and his running mate, near-San Francisco mayor Matt Gonzalez (he lost to Democrat Gavin Newsom by six percentage points), were running late when we got to the Kellogg Center's "Big 10 Room" Sunday. I estimated about 250 people in the room, from widely varying backgrounds — hippie and hipster-looking students to white-haired ladies to an Indian man in his 50s who reported that Nader's driver took a wrong turn and that we'd have to wait a half hour (it was actually an hour). In the spirit of open democracy, an "unofficial representative" of something opened up the floor to anyone who wanted to talk. Many did.

A silver-haired gentleman in his 60s, who said he was a "Wolverine, but his wife, kids and money all went to MSU," bemoaned the fact (oft repeated during the event) that Nader is not being allowed to debate McCain and Obama.

A diminutive Vietnam vet in a suit coat who said he works in a lounge announced that he was an unapologetic Socialist, and that the only thing Democrats ever did for him was to send him to war.

The idea that Democrats take for granted issues that are important to people who skew left was one that many people echoed. I agree. Both Obama and McCain have shifted to the right during their runs, and the middle line has shifted further with them. Democrat strategy assumes that most everyone to the left is going to vote for their candidate based on the "lesser evil" dictum, but, as Nader loves to point out, "you're still left with evil." Democrats instead pander to the right by embracing (maybe "bitterly"?) guns and religion and anti-choice rhetoric. The thing is, not everyone thinks the difference between the two major party candidates is enough to vote for the lesser evil. I'm still wrestling with that one. I see a clear difference between Obama and McCain, and the thought of four more years of backward regulatory measures, civil rights laws and foreign policy makes me near hyperventilate, but it pisses me off that I am actually scared to vote for the person who best reflects my policy positions. The choice is made more difficult since I now live in a state where my vote might actually count. Michigan's anybody's ball game. (Nebraska has given Republicans all its electoral votes since 1964; some think this is the year that Omaha's district "goes blue." I doubt it.)

After a bunch of open-forum feel goodery, a shaggy-haired Gonzalez stepped to the lectern. Wearing a grey suit and a green tie, the former board supervisor president of a city many believe to be the most radical (both politically and bodaciously) in the country is a calm performer. He was steely eyed and articulate while aiming most of his attacks at Democrats (he was preaching predominately to the the choir, after all). He said if the Republicans were 100 percent bad, and Democrats 15 percent, he'd understand voting for the Dems. "But the Democrats are 85 percent bad."

He faulted Obama for voting for the 2005 Energy Policy Act that incentivized the oil industry which was already making record profits.

He highlighted Nader's plan to set the minimum wage at $10 and criticized the Democrat-controlled Congress for not fighting the Taft-Hartley Act, which among other things, makes it more difficult for workers to unionize.

"Both candidates want to double what we spend on our military," he said.

He closed by saying, "We go to a lot of places and people think we've done something wrong — well I think they've done something wrong!"

Nader received a standing ovation as he entered the room, wearing a grey suit and a blue tie. Standing under poor lighting as a non-CFL lightbulb occasionally flickered overhead, he ran through his platform proposals, which include:

• Adopting single-payer national health insurance;

• Cracking down on corporate crime and corporate welfare;

• Opening up the presidential debates (obviously);

• Adopting a carbon-pollution tax;

• Reversing U.S. policy in the Middle East;

• Impeaching Buch and Clinton;

• And (what I was most interested in hearing about) not investing in nuclear power but pushing for solar energy first.

Unfortunately, he, too, spent a good chunk of his time arguing for open debates and explaining why he's running, and didn't get as deep into the issues as I'd hoped. (It's ironic that even Nader has to waste time addressing mass-media spin — he's not a Democrat, and he thinks he'd be a better president than either of the two guys. If the Democrats can't beat the GOP after eight years of Bush, they don't deserve to win.)

Still, some of the stuff he said hit home. He talked about the 58,000 people who died last year due to air quality violations and work-related injuries. "Every three weeks we have the equivelent of a 9/11 from occupational disease and trauma-related deaths."

Some more quotes:

"The rationalization of our own futility is the vernacular of this country."

"We can go to the moon and hit a target 100 miles away in space but we can't end hunger?"

Nader's best idea? A law that says anytime Congress declares war, all age-qualified children and grandchildren of congressmen are automatically drafted.

* Thanks to Allyssa Bostick for the photo