Profile in Focus | Ralph Nader (1980 - 1996)
“Jimmy Carter with Ralph Nader” under public domain by Jimmy Carter's Presidential Photographs.
Throughout his career, Nader remained a lightning rod for controversy and discussion. His actions and beliefs prompted varied reactions, from praise for his advocacy to criticism for his potential impact on election outcomes. Nader's persistence in pushing boundaries, challenging powerful interests, and advocating for a more just and accountable society established him as a figure whose impact extended far beyond the realm of consumer protection.
In August 1970, Ralph Nader, known for championing consumer interests, settled an invasion of privacy suit against General Motors (G.M.) for $425,000 (~$3,331,248.08 adjusted to July 2023 inflation). This followed G.M.'s failed attempt in 1966 to undermine Nader's critique of automotive safety by investigating him.
Nader declared his intent to use the settlement money to closely monitor G.M.'s actions on safety, pollution, and consumer relations. G.M. clarified that their payment didn't imply guilt for invading Nader's privacy, asserting that none of the lawsuit's allegations were proven.
The lawsuit stemmed from G.M.'s hiring of a private investigator, Vincent Gillen, who surveilled and harassed Nader due to his book "Unsafe at Any Speed," criticizing the safety of American automobiles, especially the General Motors Corvair.
Originally seeking $26,002,000 ($204,860,241.80 adjusted to 2023 inflation), Nader settled for $425,000 as compensatory damages, dropping claims for punitive damages. His lawyer clarified the maximum sought was $12,002,000 ($94,559,365.52 adjusted to 2023 inflation).
Nader's statement criticized G.M.'s three-year attempt to dismiss the suit and praised the New York Court of Appeals' validation of his privacy invasion claim. G.M. acknowledged the lengthy legal battle and settled to avoid further expenses and disruptions.
The settlement released not only G.M. and the investigators but also Theodore C. Sorensen, former counsel to President Kennedy, from legal liabilities. This marked a crucial step in Nader's ongoing fight for consumer rights and corporate accountability.
G.M. Settles Nader Suit On Privacy for $425,000 - The New York Times August 14, 1970
In 1973, Ralph Nader and the Union of Concerned Scientists united to launch a comprehensive critique of the nation's nuclear power policy. Their concerns were multifaceted and included economic impracticalities, insufficient scientific foundation, and what they deemed as problematic political affiliations within the industry. Their joint assertion was that nuclear power plants were fraught with risks and inadequacies, particularly in terms of safety and the rapid construction of these facilities without adequate safety testing.
Their collaborative effort aimed to bring attention to these pressing issues and take their message to various influential platforms such as Congress, the courts, and the shareholders of electric companies. Their emphasis on nuclear plant safety and their criticism of the rushed construction of these facilities resonated with the urgency of ensuring public safety.
In response, industry representatives swiftly defended the virtues of nuclear power. William R. Gould, chairman of the Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc., highlighted the global transition to nuclear power within the electric power sector, citing its advantages in fuel supply, economics, environmental impact, and public health and safety. Despite acknowledging emerging safety concerns, Gould expressed confidence that upcoming hearings before the Joint Committee in February would reinstate faith in the safety and desirability of nuclear power plants.
This clash of opinions intensified when Nader and the Concerned Scientists questioned the wisdom of placing nuclear plants near densely populated urban areas before guaranteeing their safety and reliability. They raised concerns about the potential dangers of catastrophic accidents, challenging the A.E.C.'s (Atomic Energy Commission) assurances of reactor safety by citing reservations expressed by the commission's own safety experts on multiple occasions.
Dr. Henry W. Kendall from the Cambridge group presented calculations suggesting the possibility of lethal injuries occurring within a radius of almost 100 miles in the event of a major core meltdown and subsequent release of radioactivity. This stark scenario underscored the grave potential consequences of nuclear accidents.
Nader didn't mince words, criticizing the industry's substantial investments in defense while allowing the creation of what he considered a significant vulnerability through the unchecked development of nuclear plants. He pointed out the absence of clear accountability in the event of a nuclear disaster, emphasizing the societal risks posed by this industry's unchecked expansion. This collision of perspectives shed light on the contentious debate surrounding nuclear power's safety and societal implications.
Nader Attacks Policy on Nuclear Power - The New York Times January 4, 1973
The Difference One Man Can Make - Washington Monthly May 1, 1982
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader today rejected the auto industry's... - United Press International (UPI) December 6, 1983
Nader’s Raiders 20 Years Later - Los Angeles Times October 27, 1989
On August 27, 1991, at the District Building in Washington, D.C., members of the Green Party-USA held a press conference to officially announce their formation. Charles Betz, a member of the National Coordinating Committee of The Greens, began the event, acknowledging the delayed arrival of Hilda Mason, a District of Columbia councilwoman who was hosting the conference. Betz introduced himself, along with Howie Hawkins and Joni Whitmore, all elected members of The Greens Coordinating Committee. They provided brief statements about the party's formation and plans before opening the floor to questions.
Howie Hawkins, a co-founder of The Greens, explained the party's new structure, emphasizing the creation of a national membership organization called The Greens, which comprised local chapters engaged in various political activities. They also established The Green Party-USA, a political action committee for electoral campaigns, and the Green Education Fund, a non-profit corporation for public education and community-based initiatives. All three entities would be accountable to the rank-and-file membership.
Hawkins highlighted The Greens' commitment to the four pillars of Green politics: ecology, peace, social justice, and grassroots democracy. He mentioned that they had over 300 community-based Green groups across the nation, with some already participating in electoral politics, having elected more independent candidates to office than any national alternative party since the 1930s.
Hawkins emphasized that The Greens aimed to be a year-round, grassroots democratic political organization that offered politics based on values, in contrast to the Democrats and Republicans, who primarily relied on financial contributions and political favors. The Greens promoted sustainability, economic democracy, cooperatives, and a focus on renewable energy and resources.
Joni Whitmore, chair of the Alaska Green Party, addressed the audience, emphasizing the party's environmental focus. She stressed the need to protect the environment and the interconnections between society and the economy. Whitmore explained that The Greens sought to build consensus for a sustainable environment and economy while recognizing the challenges, especially in Alaska, where oil dependency posed significant problems.
Charles Betz highlighted the Green Party-USA's "Solar Power Through Community Power" plan, which aimed to promote sustainable energy through grassroots democratic action. He urged the public to challenge the control of energy resources by conglomerates like Exxon.
In response to questions, The Greens' representatives discussed their membership numbers, fundraising efforts, and plans for expanding ballot access. They acknowledged variations in the focus on national and local elections across different states. Some states were expected to achieve ballot status soon, while others faced more complex requirements.
During the conference, Hilda Mason expressed her support for the Greens, emphasizing their ecological and inclusive values. She believed that working together with The Greens and the Statehood Party would lead to a stronger alternative political presence in the District of Columbia.
The conference concluded with a positive outlook for The Greens' future, focusing on their commitment to sustainability, democracy, and grassroots activism.