His group basically created the Freedom of Information Act, Clean Water Act, OSHA, Whistleblower Protection Act, among other things.
Which are all unfortunately not quite as effective in practice as they were intended to be, but you make a valid point regardless. These things are obviously desirable developments and are effectual - hence my edit to the part you quoted before I saw your response (ineffectual -> what Ralph Nader is advocating for isn’t enough in the present day).
But I feel like if we had a few hundred people doing that level of change, we would actually be able to do some of these things like getting money out of politics that are actually what’s needed.
I'd like to see that happen and I would appreciate the strategy and organization of such grassroots initiatives.
Is refusing to vote for that same neoliberal sufficient action to change our trajectory as a country? Seems like that is even more ineffectual, if that’s the metric.
I think it's desirable that candidates be pressured to really dig deep to be the leader we need and run on that - especially years out from an election.
I feel that lesser evil rhetoric is undesirable, unnecessary, and is part of the reason why we have the gun to our heads. Vote for the status quo or something very close to it - or get Hitler. It doesn't feel like democracy to me.
As the other commenter suggested, state-level electoral reform in blue states (such as California) could be enacted so voters are free to vote for whoever they want without spoiling. It'd be a massive step in the right direction and it'd likely get more people to turn out to the voting booths.