"The only difference between the Republican and Democratic parties is the velocities with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock on their door. That's the only difference"

Ralph Nader’s observation draws attention to the perceived similarities between the Republican and Democratic parties in the context of their relationships with corporate interests. The comparison likens politicians’ responses to corporations to a reflex: the act of their knees hitting the floor suggests deference, submission, or eagerness to please when approached by powerful business entities. By emphasizing that the only difference is the speed, “velocities”, with which this deference occurs, Nader challenges assumptions that the two major political parties are fundamentally distinct in how they interact with corporate power.

This critique is rooted in the notion that both parties, despite rhetorical differences on policy and ideology, are subject to significant influence by corporations. Campaign donations, lobbying, and the revolving door between government and industry are factors that can lead politicians, regardless of party affiliation, to prioritize corporate interests over those of ordinary constituents. According to Nader, the pace at which each party “kneels” may vary, one may be quicker or slower to acquiesce, but ultimately both respond in the same manner to corporate demands.

Such a perspective implies skepticism toward claims of substantial opposition between Democrats and Republicans on questions of economic power and regulation. It suggests that the structure of American politics, especially regarding campaign finance and access to policymaking, creates strong incentives for both parties to align with the interests of large corporations. This alignment, Nader implies, undermines genuine representation of the public and limits the potential for reforms that challenge entrenched wealth and power.

By framing the difference between the parties as merely one of speed rather than substance, Nader invites reflection on the broader systemic factors that influence political outcomes. He suggests that meaningful change may require questioning not only which party is in office, but also the foundational ways in which power and influence flow within the political system.