I have voted for Ralph Nader in 2008. I regret not voting for him in 2000 and 2004. Why? Nader’s political commitments align with mine. Ralph Nader has been a longtime critic of America’s food system, condemning corporate control, unsafe food practices, and weak government regulation. He has argued that agencies like the FDA and USDA are too close to industry lobbyists, leading to lax oversight and frequent food contamination issues. Nader has also spoken out against factory farming, citing its environmental harm, poor animal welfare standards, and negative health effects. He has criticized agribusiness giants for monopolizing the industry, reducing competition, and squeezing out small farmers, ultimately limiting consumer choice and food quality.
Nader’s criticisms of the medical-industrial complex also align with my longstanding views on the matter. Nader has opposed the pharmaceutical industry, accusing it of prioritizing profit over public health. He has highlighted the patent abuses that block competition and misleading direct-to-consumer advertising that encourage overmedication. He has also criticized the close relationship between government regulators and pharmaceutical companies, as corporate influence weakens safety standards and allows unsafe drugs to reach the market.
What I stated about Nader’s views and activism can also be attributed to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy, who was my preference for president in the 2024 election because he was the most effective critic in the race of corporate control over the food system, the influence of industry lobbyists on regulatory agencies like the FDA and USDA, and the environmental and health consequences of industrial agriculture. Kennedy has campaigned against factory farming, highlighting its role in environmental degradation, animal cruelty, and the consolidation of power by agribusiness giants that harm small farmers and consumer choice. Like Nader, Kennedy is a critic of the pharmaceutical industry’s profit-driven practices, particularly its influence over government regulators and the high cost of prescription drugs. Like Nader, Kennedy has criticized Big Pharma for monopolistic practices, aggressive patent extensions that stifle competition, and misleading advertising that prioritizes profits over patient well-being.
The Democratic Party have aggressively sought for decades to marginalize Nader and Kennedy’s views and thwart their work, especially where they might enter the political sphere where they could have the greatest impact on food, medicine, and other industries that detrimentally impact the lives of working class American and their children. As you sit today and listen to Kennedy’s confirmation hearing today—or whenever you get a chance to sit and listen to it—you would have to be profoundly ignorant or profoundly ideological blinkered to not see how the statements and disagreements testify to the vital role of the Democratic Party in advancing the interests of the oligarchy, as well as the professional-managerial and the credential strata whose serve those interests, that together constitute the corporate state and the technocratic apparatus.
freedom and reason 