Matt's Totally Biased Commentary offers a good write-up of public citizen Ralph Nader's recent visit to Glens Falls. He also offers rare praise to both the local daily Post-Star newspaper and the regional NPR affiliate and liberal establishment radio station WAMC.
He mentions the abhorrent lawsuit filed against him and his 2004 presidential running mate Peter Camejo by Pennsylvania Democrats. The progressives were incomprehensibly ordered to pay the costs of the lawsuit because some of Nader's petition signatures were ruled invalid, hardly a sign of malfeasence as anyone who's tried to collect signatures or is familiar with electoral law will know. This was only one of many lawsuits filed by Democrats [sic] trying to sabotage the Nader-Camejo campaign. Yes, these were the same Democrats, not to be confused with democrats, spent four years snivelling about alleged electoral disenfranchisement and 'making every vote count' following the 2000 elections.
One of Nader's visits was to speak with students at the local high school. One thing that struck many was how respectfully Nader treated the students and how he spoke to them as young citizens rather than little kids. Instead of patronizing them, he challenged them to become socially engaged and to not be complacent or discouraged.
I think this is one of the fundamental differences between a true public servant and an ordinary politician. Nader didn't mouth the saccharine "You're the future" stuff which is well-meaning but vague to the point of meaninglessness. Instead, he told students, "You're the present, so get to work." He challenged them instead of fluffing their egos. In reports I've received, both from the press and from several students I know personally who attended his Q&A session, Nader's tone impressed many in the audience.
One of the most telling comments comes from a student I know who's the son of a local city councilman. He told me, "I agreed with what he had to say but I still don't think he should've run for president." Naturally, this begs the question: why not?
Which of course shows that as persuasive as Nader was, there remains work to do.
6 comments:
Brian,
The fact that the kid liked what Nader had to say but still wouldn't vote for president shows just why, even though we can speak to kids as adults, they still aren't. And most adults aren't either, but let's not go there for now.
It's part of the growing up process for kids to go through that stage. You say it begs the question, why not? And I think the answer would be, even though the kid liked what he had to say, he still hasn't developed enough as an individual (though he might argue till he was blue in the face that he has)to vote his conscience and not what he thinks he is supposed to or vote for the name that he is bombarded with in the media.
It's funny how you don't realize all of that stuff when you are young. I know I didn't. I'm still not sure. We get inundated on all sides by information. And when I was still in school, I had no idea about all of the stuff I had no idea about. But I thought I did.
Sorry to ramble but the story of the student not knowing why he wouldn't vote for Nader dredged up memories of my Dad telling me over and over that "You're stil young. You don't know how much you don't know."
Jim
Jim,
I have to respectfully disagree with you. As a Naderite, I can't tell you how many ADULTS told me the exact same thing as that kid.
I'm sure it's not news to you that many adults use non-issue based criteria to cast their votes as well. I had countless left-leaning ADULTS tell me in 2000 and 2004 that they liked Nader but wouldn't vote for him because they "didn't think he could win." Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy. Did those people vote their consciences? I think not.
The problem isn't the child mentality vs the adult mentality. If anything, kids are MORE open than adults to new ideas. If anything, young people were the most energized groups by Nader's campaigns (even though he's older and consciously unhip), especially in 2000.
The problem the whole way our political system is structured with its presumption that the simplistic dichotomy of two parties satisfy the desires of a hugely diverse population.
I thought it was interesting, that being practical rather than principled, is taught at such a young age.
I can picture the parents screaming that Nader stole Gore's election win.
Renegade,
Actually I know his parents and it's not the kind of thing that either would say. BUT I did hear the kid refer to Nader in a conversation with one of his friends as a "vote stealer." So you're not far off!
Brian,
I don't believe I ever said the problem came down to a child vs. adult mentality. That would be a straw man.
Nor did I have an opinion on the flaws of the two party system. Another can of worms, that is.
And I believe that I implied that many adults lack the maturity to make good decisions in my first paragraph. My point was the kid in question, and many teenagers and young adults, are still subject to their immaturity.
I stand by my theory that the kid in question, like most kids doesn't have the sense of self and necessary life experience to winnow what he really wants or needs from the bombardment of information he gets every day, from nearly all angles.
I applaud Ralph Nader for speaking to the students like adults. Few things alienate like condescension. But speaking to them like adults and expecting them to make mature decisions is maybe expecting too much. I don't remember who said it but I think that there is some truth to it:
"Good judgement comes from making too many bad decisions." There are always exceptions to any rule, but it usually takes a while to develop good decision making skills.
Jim
Jim,
The first sentence of your first comment implied to me that the mentality you described was particular to children. I don't accept that this is a straw man. I accept that this is not what you meant. However, only you know what you meant. I can only infer from what you wrote and the context in which you wrote it.
The thing that confused me is this. You did say most adults act the same way. Why didn't you want to go there? If most adults act the same way (a premise with which I agree), then how does your observation demonstrate anything particular about kids?
I am aware that you did not express an opinion on the two-party system. I added that of my own volition because I think it's relevant to a discussion on the mentality of the voting public.
I understand your point. But I understand Nader's as well. As someone who works a great deal with kids, I've concluded that they will more often than not live up to your expectations if only you have some of them. Not always, of course. You have to let them make mistakes and learn from them.
But if you expect nothing of them, that's usually what you'll get. I think it's more productive to expect 'too much' and be occasionally disappointed than to expect nothing and always get exactly that. By this, I don't mean trying to live vicariously through your kids or making every decision for them. But by reinforcing to them the importance of being responsible citizens and members of society (and modeling such behavior too!). No one's perfect, but there's nothing wrong with expecting anyone, regardless of age, to try, to be conscious of this.
Of course, hardly any 16 year old is going to be able to process the information Nader receives on a daily basis and figure out how to advocate accordingly. But they can volunteer at a soup kitchen. They can attend a city council meeting. They can plant trees. I think rejecting this 'all or nothing' dichotomy in terms of social awareness has always been part of Nader's message. The 16 year old can't save the world but maybe he can help save his neighborhood park.
Post a Comment