What it takes to create social change against all odds

Over the decades, my colleagues and I
have exposed terrible misdeeds and crimes

by large corporations

which have taken many lives

and caused injuries and diseases,

on top of damaging economic costs

affecting many innocents.

But exposure was not enough.

We had to secure Congressional mandates
to prevent such devastation.

As a result, many lives were saved
and many traumas prevented,

especially in the areas of automobile,
pharmaceutical, environmental,

and workplace health and safety.

Along the way, we kept getting
one question again and again:

"Ralph, how do you do all this?

Your group is so small,

your funds are modest,

and you don't make campaign
contributions to politicians."

My response points to an overlooked,

amazing pattern of American history.

Just about every advance in justice,

every blessing of democracy,

came from the efforts of small numbers
of individual citizens.

They knew what they were talking about.

They expanded public opinion,

or what Abraham Lincoln called
"the all-important public sentiment."

The few citizens who started
these movements

enlisted larger numbers along the way

to achieving these reforms
and redirections.

However, even at their peak,

the actively engaged people

never exceeded one percent
of the citizenry, often far less.

These builders of democracy and justice

came out of the anti-slavery drives,

the pressures for women's right to vote.

They rose from farmers and workers
in industrial sectors

demanding regulation of banks,
railroads and manufacturers

and fair labor standards.

In the 20th century,

improvements of life

came with tiny third parties
and their allies

pushing the major parties
in the electoral arena

to adopt such measures,

such as the right to form labor unions,

the 40-hour week,

progressive taxation, the minimum wage,

unemployment compensation
and social security.

More recently came Medicare
and civil rights, civil liberties,

nuclear arms treaties,

consumer and environmental triumphs,

all sparked by citizen advocates

and small third parties

who never won a national election.

If you're willing to lose persistently,

your causes can become winners in time.

(Laughter)

The story of how I came
to these civic activities

may be instructive

for people who go along
with Senator Daniel Webster's belief,

"Justice served

is the great interest of man on Earth."

I grew up in a small,

highly industrialized town in Connecticut

with three siblings and parents

who owned a popular restaurant
bakery and delicatessen.

Two waterways,

the Mad River and the Still River,

crossed alongside our main street.

As a child, I asked,

"Why couldn't we wade and fish in them

like the rivers we read about
in our schoolbooks?"

The answer: the factories
freely use these rivers

to dump harmful toxic chemicals
and other pollutants.

In fact, the companies
took control of rivers

that belong to all of us
for their own profitable pursuits.

Later, I realized the rivers
were not part of our normal lives at all,

except when they flooded our streets.

There were no water pollution regulations

to speak of then.

I realized only strong laws
could clean up our waterways.

My youthful observation
of our town's two river's sewers

started a straight line
to my eighth grade graduation speech

about the great conservationist
national park advocate John Muir,

then to my studies at Princeton
on the origins of public sanitation,

and then to Rachel Carson's
"Silent Spring."

These engagements prepared me

for seizing the golden hour
of environmental lawmaking

in the early 1970s.

I played a leading citizen role

in lobbying through Congress
the Clean Air Act,

the clean water laws, EPA,

workplace safety standards, OSHA,

and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

If there's less lead in your body,

no more asbestos in your lungs,

and cleaner air and water,

it's because of those laws over the years.

Today, enforcement
of these life-saving laws

under Trump is being dismantled wholesale.

Rolling back these perils
is the immediate challenge

to a resurgent environmental movement,
for the young generation.

As for consumer advocates,
there are no permanent victories.

Passing a law is only the first step.

The next step, and the next step,
is defending the law.

For me, some of these battles
were highly personal.

I lost friends in high school
and college to highway collisions,

the first leading cause of death
in that age group.

Then, the blame was put on the driver,

derisively called
"the nut behind the wheel."

True, drunk drivers had responsibility,

but safer-designed vehicles and highways
could prevent crashes

and diminish their severity
when they occurred.

There were no seatbelts,
padded dash panels,

no airbags or other
crash-worthy protections

to diminish the severity of collisions.

The brakes, tires and handling stability
of US vehicles left much to be desired

even in comparison
with foreign manufacturers.

I liked to hitchhike,

including back and forth
from Princeton and Harvard Law School.

Sometimes, a driver and I came upon
ghastly crash scenes.

The horrors made a deep impression on me.

They sparked my writing
a paper at law school

on unsafe automotive design and the need
for motor vehicle safety laws.

One of my closest friends at law school,

Fred Condon, was driving home
one day from work

to his young family in New Hampshire,

and momentarily drowsed
behind the wheel of his station wagon.

The vehicle went to the shoulder
of the road and tipped over.

There were no seatbelts in 1961.

Fred became a paraplegic.

Such preventable violence
created fire in my belly.

The automobile industry
was cruelly refusing to install

long-known lifesaving safety features
and pollution controls.

Instead, the industry focused
on advertising the annual style changes

and excessive horsepower.

I was outraged.

The more I investigated the suppression
of auto safety devices,

publicized evidence from court cases
about the auto companies

negligently harming vehicle occupants,

especially the instability
of a GM vehicle called the "Corvair,"

the more General Motors was keen
on discrediting my writings and testimony.

They hired private detectives
to follow me in order to get dirt.

After the publication of my book,
"Unsafe at Any Speed,"

GM wanted to undermine
my forthcoming testimony

before a Senate subcommittee in 1966.

The Capitol police caught them.

The media was all over
the struggle in Congress

between me and giant General Motors.

With remarkable speed, compared to today,

in 1966 Congress and President Johnson

brought the largest industry in America

under federal regulation

for safety, pollution control

and fuel efficiency.

By the year 2015,

three and a half million deaths
were averted just in the US,

millions more injuries prevented,
billions of dollars saved.

What did it take for a victory
against such overwhelming odds?

Well, there were:

one, a few advocates who knew how
to communicate the evidence everywhere;

two, several key receptive
Congressional committee chairs

led by three Senators;

three, about seven reporters
from major newspapers

who regularly reported
on the unfolding story;

four, President Lyndon Johnson,
with assistance,

amenable to creating
a regulatory safety agency, ??;

and five, a dozen auto engineers,
inspectors and physicians

who divulged crucial information
and who need to be better known.

One more factor was critical:
informed public opinion.

A majority of people learned about
how much safer their cars could be.

They wanted their vehicles
to be fuel-efficient.

They wanted to breathe cleaner air.

The result: in September 1966,

President Lyndon Johnson signed
the safety legislation in the White House

with me by his side receiving a pen.

(Laughter)

Between 1966 and 1976,

those six critically connected factors
were used over and over.

It became the golden age
of legislation and regulatory action,

for consumer, worker,
and environmental protection.

Those connected elements
of our past campaigns

need to be kept in mind
by people striving to do the same today

for drinking water safety,
antibiotic resistance deaths,

criminal justice reform,
risks from climate disruption,

bio- and nanotech impacts,
the nuclear arms race, peace treaties,

dangers to children,
chemical and radioactive perils,

and the like.

According to a solid study in 2016
by Johns Hopkins School of Medicine,

preventable hospital deaths

take a mind-boggling 5,000 lives
a week in America.

The 1980s climax, our dramatic struggle
to limit smoking in public places

regulated the tobacco industry
and established conditions

for reducing smoking.

Their struggle began in earnest in 1964

with the US Surgeon General's
famous report linking cigarette smoking

to cancer and other diseases.

Over 400,000 deaths a year
in the United States

are related to smoking.

Public hearings, litigation,
media exposes and industry whistleblowers

joined with crucial medical scientists
to take on a very powerful industry.

I asked Michael ??,
a leading Senate staffer,

"How many full-time advocates were working
on tobacco industry control at that time?"

Mr. ?? estimated no more
than 1,000 full-time champions in the US

pressing for a smoke-free society.

I say that's a remarkably small number
of people making it happen.

They had a public opinion majority
of aroused people,

non-smokers, behind them.

Many smokers were quitting
the nicotine addiction.

Just think: from 45 percent of adults
down to 15 percent by 2018.

The tipping point was when Congress

passed legislation empowering
the Food and Drug Administration

to regulate the tobacco companies.

Keep in mind,

the advances for consumers and workers

are usually followed by a variety
of corporate counter-attacks.

When the fervor behind such reform fades,

then legislatures and regulatory agencies

become very vulnerable to industry capture

that stalls existing
or further enforcement.

What's that saying?

"Justice requires constant vigilance."

We see the difference between

the driven stamina of counter-attacking,
profit-driven corporate power

and the fatigue that overcomes
the voluntary citizenry

whose awareness and skill need renewal.

It is not a fair contest
between large companies

like General Motors, Pfizer,
ExxonMobil, Wells Fargo, Monsanto,

plus other very wealthy
companies and lobbyists,

compared to people protection groups
with very limited resources.

Moreover, the corporations
have immunities and privileges

unavailable to real human beings.

For example, Takata was guilty
of a horrific airbag scandal,

but the company escaped
criminal prosecution.

Instead, Takata was allowed to go bankrupt
and its executives kept nice nest eggs.

But organized people need not
be awed by corporate power.

Lawmakers still want votes

more than they need
campaign finance from corporations.

We far outnumber corporations
in potential influence.

But voters must be connected clearly

to what organized voters
want from the lawmakers.

Delegating the constitutional
authority of "we the people,"

we want them to do the people's work.

A people's congress,

the most constitutionally powerful
branch of government,

can override, block, or re-channel
the most destructive corporations.

There are only a hundred Senators
and 435 representatives

with just two million
organized activists back home,

a Congress watchdog hobby.

Congressional justice
can be made reliable and prompt.

We've proved that again and again
with far fewer people.

But today, Congress,
marinated in campaign money,

has been abdicating its responsibilities
to an executive branch

which too often

has become a corporate state
controlled by big companies.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1938
in a message to Congress

called concentrated corporate power
over our government

"fascism."

A modest engagement
of one percent of adults

in each of the 435
Congressional districts,

summoning Senators and Representatives

or State Legislators

to their own town meetings,

where the citizenry presents their agenda,

backed by a majority of voters,

can turn Congress around.

Our representatives can become
a fountainhead of democracy and justice,

elevating human possibilities.

I dream of our schools,

or after-school clinics,

teaching community civic action skills

leading to the good life.

Adult education should do the same.

We need to create citizen training
and action libraries.

Students and adults love knowledge

that relates to their daily lives.

Large majorities of Americans,

regardless of political labels,

favor a living wage,

universal health insurance,

real enforcement against
corporate crime, fraud and abuse.

They want a fair, productive tax system,

public budgets returning value
to the people back home,

and modern infrastructure,

and an end to most corporate subsidies.

Increasingly, they're demanding
serious attention to climate disruption

and other environmental
and global health perils and pandemics.

Big majorities of people
want efficient government,

an end to endless,
aggressive wars that boomerang.

They want clean elections
and fair rules for voters and candidates.

These are changes
that bring people together,

changes Congress can make happen.

People around the world favor democracy

because it brings the best
out of its inhabitants and its leaders,

but this objective requires citizens
to want to spend time

on this great opportunity
called democracy,

between and at elections.

History gives examples
that encourage us to believe

that breaking through power
is easier than we think.

People say to me,
"I don't know what to do."

Start to learn by doing.

The more they practice citizen action,

the more skilled and innovative
they become at it.

Like learning a trade, a profession,
a hobby, learning how to swim,

their doubts, prejudgments and hesitancy

begin to melt away
in the crucible of action.

Their arguments for change
become deeper and sharper.

From 1965 to 1966,

when I was making the case
for safer automobiles,

I realized that there were
a lot of industries

making a lot of money

from dealing with
the horrific results of crashes:

medical care, insurance sales,
repairing cars.

There was a perverse incentive
to do nothing but maintain the status quo.

By contrast, preventing these tragedies
frees consumer dollars to spend or save

in voluntary [?] for better livelihoods.

What it takes is a small number of people
to exert their civic muscle,

both as individuals and organized groups,
on our legal decision makers.

Ideally, it only takes a few
enlightened rich people

contributing funds
to accelerate citizen efforts

against the commanders
of greed and power.

Why, in our past, rich people
donated essential money

for the anti-slavery,
women's right to vote,

and civil rights movements.

We should remember that.

With the onset of climate catastrophe,

every one of us needs to have
a higher estimate of our own significance,

of our own sustained
dedication to the civic life,

as part of a normal way of daily living,

along with our personal family life.

Showing up thoughtfully
is half of democracy.

That's what advances life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness.

Remember, our country
is full of problems we don't deserve

and solutions which we do not applaud.

That gap is a democracy gap
that no power can stop us from closing.

We owe this to our posterity.

Don't we want our descendants,

instead of cursing us
for our shortsighted neglect,

don't we want them to bless our foresight

and bright horizons which can
fulfill their lives peacefully

and advance the common good?

Thank you.

(Applause)