Shadman is a third-year international development studies student
and part of the Environmental Coalition.
By Chez Shadman
After reading Brian Fishman’s article, “Anticipation
of election outcome parallels “˜Survivor,’"(Daily
Bruin, Viewpoint, Oct. 25), in which he referred to presidential
candidate Ralph Nader as rude, irrational and unreasonable, I
realized that people have misconceptions about the Green party
candidate.
I find it alarming that voters have such negative attitudes
toward Nader, yet most haven’t even visited his Web site or
researched his background. I had the opportunity of working on his
campaign this summer as well as the opportunity of meeting him in
person. Nader is one of the most good-willed and respectable men of
our time and it is obvious that the “Survivor” article
did not have any concrete research or evidence to back up its
claims.
People are so clueless about Nader that I get looks of surprise
when I mention the fact that he graduated magna cum laude from
Princeton University and then went on to Harvard Law School.
It’s as though people think of him as some incompetent fool
running for president as a joke.
As for him being irrational or unreasonable, the evidence
reveals the contrary. Nader has single-handedly changed the way in
which this country works, and for the better. With all his
accomplishments, it is rather difficult to see where
unreasonableness and irrationality can fit in. The reality is that
Nader is the only candidate who is representing the people and not
the corporations.
For the past three decades, Nader has been ardently fighting for
the rights and the safety of human beings. His organizations have
been responsible for federal consumer protection laws such as the
Safe Drinking Water Act. In addition, regulatory agencies such as
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environment
Protection Agency, and the Consumer Product Safety Administration
have been created. Together, they have caused the recall of
millions of defective motor vehicles and created access to the
government through the Freedom of Information Act of 1974.
Time magazine called Nader the “U.S.’s toughest
customer.” His inspiration and example have awakened consumer
advocates, citizen activists, and public interest lawyers who have
established more public awareness organizations throughout the
country.
In 1971, Nader founded Public Citizen, which served as the eyes
and ears in Washington, working for consumer justice as well as
government and corporate accountability. How many previous
presidents, or current presidential candidates, have committed so
much time and energy to the well-being of the people?
In addition to the aforementioned qualifications, Nader also
spent time as a consultant to the U.S. Department of Labor and
acted as an unpaid supervisor to a Senate subcommittee that focused
on what role the federal government might play in auto safety. With
all this said, most people still cast him aside, labeling him as
unqualified.
Nevertheless, Nader has amassed quite a following, and more and
more people are jumping on the progressive bandwagon. Nader’s
popularity is growing at a rapid pace. It’s no wonder that,
with a record like his, he speaks to sold out crowds of 12,000.
People actually pay to hear him speak. I don’t even think
that many people tuned into the debates between Bush and Gore, and
that was for free.
More and more Americans are realizing that the two party system
is not working for their benefit. People are tired of election
after election, each full of empty promises and large campaign
contributions from corporations. It is the very same Democratic and
Republican politicians who are maintaining our corporate dominated
society.
It shouldn’t be a surprise that we have 46,000,000 people
without health care, hundreds of thousands of people without homes
(a majority of those being children), and that we spend four times
as much money on our defense than our enemies do.
Nader’s plan is simple: take away the excess power that
the corporations have and give it back to the people. We can still
have a rich and powerful country, as well as a healthy and
sheltered people.
The only way to allow this is by electing a man who is not for
sale by the corporations, who is not corrupted by dirty politics,
and who actually has legitimate plans to make this country a better
place. That is why Nader is such an ideal candidate.
He actually discusses issues people want to hear. His plans
support a capitalist society, as well as a society in which no one
is forgotten. The common misconception among voters is that Nader
wants to do away with our corporate society. In actuality, he only
wants to strip the corporations of their unnecessary power. He has
plans to maintain our stability as a super power, but
simultaneously stop the worldwide oppression brought on by our
current corporate owned leaders.
His plans include creating more jobs for the public, upgrading
our failing educational system, and fighting our poverty dilemma
while also maintaining the prosperity of our country. Neither Bush
nor Gore has even touched on the plethora of issues Nader has, and
some of the ones they have acknowledged have no devised solution.
It amazes me, when all of this is said and done, that Bush and Gore
still dominate the polls.
People need to stop moving with the masses and start thinking on
their own. A good vote is an educated vote. Not enough people feel
the necessity of reading up on all of the candidates prior to
making a decision. In allowing this to happen, we are overlooking
some of the greatest opportunities that have come our way.
It is not so much that I have a problem with people who want to
vote Bush or Gore. Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion.
I do, however, have a problem with people who choose to make their
own generalizations about a candidate without even bothering to
read up on that particular candidate’s views or plans. Not
only are such people cheating the system, but they are also
cheating themselves out of a well-educated choice.
Nader may or may not be the candidate for you, but you will
never know unless you do some investigating. Simply casting him
aside as irrational, unreasonable, incompetent, or even rude is not
right.
Come Election Day, our vote should not be based on others’
opinions or on what candidate won’t get elected. You should
vote for who you feel is most qualified based on your research.
Maybe then we’ll see a difference.