Nader wrote a letter to President Obama, urging him to hold a meeting with non-profit "civic groups." He never received a reply, and so he wrote a letter to First Lady Michelle Obama. Her assistant wrote back, saying that the president is too busy to have such a meeting. Nader wrote to Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, and to several other progressive senators. He said that he never received a response from any of them. He went onto say that that compared to Republicans, progressives do not communicate amongst themselves. Imagine what might be possible if these progressive senators all wrote to one another and stayed in contact. They could come up with different ideas for campaigns, legislation, and so forth. If they didn't answer Ralph Nader, it can be assumed that they don't communicate much with each other, and progressives don't have the kind of network-building that has gone on among many conservative groups.
There seem to be progressives who will argue with people they disagree with, but who won't go into nursing home and volunteer some some with seniors, or act as mentors at a Boys Club or similar youth organization, or provide some assistance of some kind to a homeless shelter, or volunteer at a community mental health center, or help out at a local school. I am sure that there are progressives who volunteer their time, realizing that some people have to work two jobs or have to work overtime, and simply don't have extra time to spare. But if people do volunteer their time, or if they write a letter to the editor of a magazine or newspaper, or if they call up the office of their member or members of Congress and express opinions, or disagree with positions taken by politicians, then it would be interesting, for a change, to read about some of these activities on a site such as this. Perhaps these examples would inspire others or would provide some insights.
We have a situation where a disctinction is not made all that often between helping people maintain their situation in life, helping them with basic needs, versus addressing upward mobility through education or job placement programs.
I have found that in my state, there are some right-wing individuals who believe that they are the only human beings on earth, that no one else exists. People drive recklessly, ignoring that they do not have the legal right-of-way, almost causing an accident unless someone else stops when that driver has the right to proceed, and the other driver was supposed to stop. Who cares about rules involving safety? There is much that I have observed in everyday life that shows social deterioration corresponding with financial meltdowns in both the private sector and in government, and in moral deterioration in the combined empahsis on hate and greed on the part of lower middle-class people, let alone billionaires that Bernie Sanders talks about. If the government is not as it should be, that would reflect problems with We the People, wouldn't it?
Nader was talking about progressives communicating with other progressives. Sometimes, I notice that people posting comments on this site mainly argue with someone they disagree with. It is interesting contemplate how the entire organization of our society in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, and above all else, income, affects political persuation and socialization (yes, political scientists do sometimes talk about political socialization). The issues are all interconnected economically, politically, socially, and even environmentally. Some of these connections seem obvious, whereas others are subtle and complex.
The PBS Newshour did a report the other evening on how artificial intelligence may eventually eliminate the jobs of some highly educated professionals who sit in front of a computer screen all day. Computers may be able to do things faster and more accurately than can humans. They also make mistakes, as do people. Some experts they had on were from the computer science/artificial intelligence departments of universities. These AI people claim that their work will make life better for people, as their jobs will become more cognitively interesting, as the computers are left to the less intricate decision-making. I don't buy this argument. It seems to me that those who want to put others out-of-work are on the side of corporate management and are elitist. One author has already complained about the elite nature of Silicon Valley software engineers and executives. People go to college these days, given its high cost, mainly to improve their chances of employment and to boast their incomes with white-collar level employment. Yet, to an increasing extent, it sometimes seems as if the goal of people in higher education is to create equipment and software that will put people out-of-work. Anti-government assistance rhetoric has risen with the move to the right of the Republicans. No public services, and no jobs; that seems to be the possible future for many. Technology has a way of changing the "playing field" and altering what issues are in the forefront of people's minds.