Ralph Nader Book Signing for"Unstoppable" - April 22nd, Union Square B&N, NYC

Unlike the book signing to Jimmy Carter last month, I heard about this particular book signing weeks in advance, and so had more time to get prepared. I had seen President Carter before, but had never seen Nader before. I knew of Ralph Nader's lifetime commitment as a defender of the people, and advocate for better and safer products earlier in his career as a consumer advocate, and later on, as a fairly prominent political figure who launched two major presidential campaigns that, more or less, put forth the notion of the necessity of other alternatives to the two major parties. His proven track record as a defender of the interests of the common people over corporations has spanned many decades, going back to the sixties. My mom remembers him from back then, and I also remember him being mentioned in an episode of Mad Men, although not in a very flattering manner.

Getting into the city in plenty of time, I enjoyed a brief walk from the PATH station on 14th street, to Union Square, where the Barnes & Noble hosting this particular event was situated. Picked up my copy of Nader's most recent book, "Unstoppable", which is set to be released to the general public on April 29th. Then, I headed upstairs to the fourth floor, where the event and book signing were to take place.

When I got there, it looked surprisingly empty. I began to worry that people were not going to show up, but need not have worried. After burying my nose in Nader's latest work, beginning to get my first real look at it, I looked up to notice that the place had filled up very nicely in the meantime. By the time that he actually took the stage, all the seats looked filled, and there were quite a few people all the way in the back, standing! He was the big draw that I assumed that he was, and deserves to be.

Before Nader made his appearance, though, I began to talk with my neighbor, a woman who said that she had last seen Nader over thirty years ago. I mentioned that this was my first time seeing him, and she raised her eyebrows in surprise. She then proceeded to test my credentials as an activist and like-minded liberal, presumptively, testing my knowledge of 99.5, the local hyper-political station to the left. I failed that test, apparently, and she urged me to start listening to it more often. She also mentioned some names of prominent people on that station, as well as some writers (the names of which I cannot remember - names have never been a strong suit). She gave a brief description of one such individual who, according to her, predicted "the end" within fifteen years, suggesting that the temperatures have already risen too much for anything to be done with it, and that we will not have more than fifteen years before the final extinction. Given the emphasis later placed by Ralph Nader on rejecting defeatism and the quitter mentality, I found this a bit ironic. Especially when she laughed knowingly at Nader's mockery of such quitters that have no hope for a better future.

While we were still talking, there was suddenly a bit of a commotion, as people in the back began to applaud and cheer. These grew, and everyone turned to watch Ralph Nader walking on the far side of the room, heading towards the podium.

A lot of people will still blame Nader for the victory of George W. Bush in the 2000 election, which he might be best known for nowadays (although that is highly debatable). But Nader mentioned that the United States is the only industrialized country in the world where a man can come in second, with clearly less votes than his opponent, and still be rewarded with the presidency for his "victory".

That was not all that he said about George W. Bush and his presidency. He repeatedly blasted the Iraq war, and reminded everyone that America fought a revolution to get rid of one King George who wanted to wage unjust wars, only to get another King George waging unjust wars more than two centuries later. Kind of ironic.

He mentioned, of course, the complacency of the Democratic Party in the war on Iraq, as well as, in general, the acceptance of the present economic system that systematically favors corporate supremacy. These he used as an illustration, as well as a jumping board, for the need for more political alternatives than the two major parties, which he described as one party with two heads, that go to extraordinary lengths to keep any possibility, however remote, of a viable third option out. As further evidence of this, he mentioned how, despite a full year of campaigning, he only got a total of three minutes airtime nationally during his presidential bid, and was shut out of the debates. While launching trying to launch his bid for the presidency, his campaign got sued 24 times in a span of eight weeks. With a staff of only about 25 people or so, it was all overwhelming. The two major parties had succeeded in putting up a lot of legal roadblocks and requirements just to get on the ballot, and that these difficulties were encountered in literally every single state. Even on the local level, there are just so obstacles, that it is exceedingly difficult for a third option to so much as get on the ballot box. It was Labor Day by the time that his own presidential campaign really was able to get into the swing of things, which left about eight weeks before the election. Clearly not enough time.

These are the frustrations that await any real challenge to either major party. But Nader did suggest that about fifteen to twenty billionaires should run for president, since billionaires are automatically taken seriously by the mainstream media. He cited Ross Perot, who launched a very major, if eclectic, campaign in 1992, that saw him actually appear as the frontman for a brief while, and who remained a candidate that had serious impact right up until the end, and who many consider to be the main reason that George H. W. Bush lost that election to his eventual successor, Bill Clinton.

A lot of people do not believe that there can be any real cooperative teamwork between liberals and conservatives, but Ralph Nader's book is, of course, an effort to refute that belief. He mentioned some things that every American wants, such as clean air to breathe, and safe food to consume. They want to be paid fairly, enough to provide for their families. They do not want their taxes to be excessive. These are common, core issues that we can all agree on. The principle differences are in how we achieve these things. Yet, Nader believes that things have gotten so bad, that even liberals and conservative can probably agree on far more than they are led to believe that they can. We just need to get past the stigmas of perceived extreme divisions.

He cited some potential areas of agreement. Scaling back corporate control was the overriding theme in all of this, but that is such a general topic that specifics are needed. So, he cited certain examples, such as the overcrowded prisons. The United States has more prisoners than any other country in the world, and by far! The US accounts for a total of 5% of the world's population, yet it has 25% of the world's prison population! Liberals have been outraged by the detrimental impact on human rights, while conservatives have voiced strong concern over the costs of such a system.

He mentioned the danger of getting caught up in a rigid interpretation of ideology, where you can get lost in an inflexible belief in how things should be, without looking at the reality all around you. As an example, he suggested that a conservative Walmart employee will probably put aside his conservative principles and arguments for the minimum wage being too high and not reject the opportunity if he himself can get a higher salary, particularly if he has a family to provide for.

Nader mentioned that 800 Americans will die each week because they cannot afford to get their illness diagnoses and/or treated because medical expenses in the United States are just too high. That adds up to 45,000 Americans per year. He reminded the audience that the United States stands as the only country in the industrialized world without some form of universal, affordable healthcare - a fact that Americans need reminding of at every turn, it seems to me. Nader cited the example of Canada, where the healthcare system is half the cost of the American one, and everyone is covered, like they are in all other industrialized nations but the US, from the moment they are born, to the moment that they die.

He also spoke of the necessity for those on the left and the right to break out of the perception that their differences are so divisive, that it is unthinkable that they could possibly have any issues in common, let alone work together. That is the point of his new book, where he predicts a joining of forces based on issues that they have in common. The underlying theme that both sides can agree on is that corporate supremacy, which has run rampant in the United States, has reached such an extreme, and things have gotten so bad as a result, that many both to the left and to the right There are certainly points of agreement that they can join forces on to overcome together.

One of the main arguments he made was the both left and right tend to want to eliminate he corporate welfare system that has proven costly in so many ways to Americans. Nader reminded everyone that the word "corporation" is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Nor is the two party system mentioned. The de facto assumption that this is somehow a part of the American tradition was a much later invention. Somehow, it got so entrenched within "the system", that people forgot that this was never part of the American political tradition until quite recently.

In fact, Nader reminded everyone, the United States has a long and rich tradition of "the little guy" winning unlikely victories over big money and big power. This is an aspect of American history too often forgotten.

To sum up, he urged everyone to keep it on the ground. Do not get lost in abstractions and high-minded ideas, because that does not work. The corporate political machine has plenty of money to afford the best spokespeople in this regard, and they have no hesitation about using whatever political platitudes apply to their best interest in any given circumstance. And they can argue these very well, hijacking any prominent intellectual of the past and manipulating these arguments to promote their very narrow interests, which have proven time and again to go against the best interests of the average people. So, Nader urged specific examples, and reminding people of the practical implications of specific actions. He used the example of conservative commentator George Will, who ran outside of his home one day to find a woman lying dead on the street after an automobile accident. Despite being against regulations, Will strongly advocated the necessity of seatbelts. And despite the strong opposition of GM, Ford went along with it, and the measure eventually passed. Nader also used an example that he had been active with, when the auto safety bill that he had advocated unanimously passed the House in 1966, then got a strong majority in the Senate. When common interests merge, people on either side of the political spectrum can work together. He also mentioned that the Green part in Germany, while only having 5% popular support, nonetheless punches harder than it's weight because of the coalitions it joins. It can happen and, he reminds us, must happen. In fact, he believes it is inevitable, and that is why he titled his book "Unstoppable".

The question and answer session that followed Nader's talk was quite lively. When asked how to respond to those deflated and defeated individuals who think nothing will ever change in Washington no matter what, he urged a provocative response. He gave an example that he himself used, responding with, "Oh, so you're a quitter?" He also strongly urged anyone posed with someone who is confronted with another who feels completely powerless like that to remind them of just how much is at stake, by pointing out that what we do now, or what we allow now, will affect future generations - your kids and grandkids.

One particularly fascinating exchange was between a young representative of the Occupy movement and Nader. The young man mentioned his role in the Occupy movement, and Nader responded by saying that while he was generally impressed with the movement, it could have done more. He mentioned the Occupy movement's rejection of the notion of leaders, because of the dangers of having a few prominent people as the face and the voice of a whole movement.  Nader said that he could sympathize with that, but that a rejection of the idea of leaders should not have translated to a rejection of leadership, and he felt that the movement suffered as a result of leadership.

The Empire State Building all decked out in green, in honor of Earth Day! My mind had been contemplating on a lot of what Ralph Nader said on this evening, and I actually almost missed this sight! But luckily, I looked up, and tried to take a halfway decent picture. It is far away, but you can definitely at least see it, and it looks beautiful!

A statue of Gandhi at Union Square in New York City. A fitting theme for Earth Day, and it also did not seem entirely out of place for the Ralph Nader book signing event that I was attending, either.