An Unreasonable Man

A very interesting documentary about a misunderstood or maybe misrepresented man and presidential candidate in Ralph Nader. Now I have never been a fan of most of the politics of Ralph Nader, his stance on environmental issues and his mostly liberal leaning views have never agreed with me. That is not to say that I do not agree and side with Nader on a few other issues, for example his beliefs in campaign reform and something this film makes very clear, the desperate need this country has to reform it's whole election process, especially the dominating two party system that will continue to keep giving us more of the same every four years. This is not to say that I did or would ever vote for Ralph Nader, in fact I didn't and am grateful to Nader for any votes he took away from Al Gore. I was surprised to learn of all Nader had done in the automotive industry and how hard General Motors had tried to stop Nader, that is proof that money is all that matters to major companies even if it puts their consumers at risk. So, yes I greatly respect Ralph Nader for all the good he as accomplished and all the boundaries he broke down in his presidential runs but I do not stand behind his politics, at least not all of them. One thing I did absolutely loved about this film, when they showed Nader's campaign rally at Madison Square Garden and all these famous celebrities, Susan Sarandon and Michael Moore all singing the praises of Ralph Nader and singing the praises of real change, wow how quickly their true colors show, Nader goes onto loose and they turn on him just like that. Typical liberals, so passionate about something one minute and then not the next, say one thing do another.

A paradox: here is one of the most significant and controversial men of recent American history, and yet the media rarely mention him. Once a hero, he has become a pariah. This new documentary is a good record of the achievement and the controversy. While it's friendly to the man, it also lets some of his most vitriolic political opponents (Gitlin, Alterman) speak out loud and clear. It's hard to leave the theater without entering into a debate over the final issue the film raises: Was Nader right or wrong to run as a third party candidate against George W. Bush? Did his campaign really cause Al Gore to lose? Is Nader responsible for the Iraq war? The huge deficit? The post-Katrina debacle? The film takes us back to Nader's origins: he was one of four siblings born into a Lebanese Christian immigrant family in Winstead, Connecticut, whose town meetings he came to consider an example of true direct democracy. His mother was a political activist and his father a restaurant owner who encouraged, if not required, political debate with customers and at home at the dinner table. "What did you learn at school today"? his father would ask young Ralph: "Did you learn to think, or did you learn to believe?" Clearly the man, his brother, and his two sisters, learned leadership from these origins. Each became outstanding in their own field. Nader went to Princeton and Harvard Law, then after a brief stint in the Army and time as a lawyer and teacher of government, he went to Washington, and the rest is history.

What is it about Ralph Nader? Surely there is no one like him in public life. The crusader, the Knight in Shining Armor. One thinks of the lean face, the uniform of dark suit and plain tie, the calm, piercing, often ironic voice. One thinks of the man's dedication, his frugality. He has never married, a conscious choice: work comes first; there's no room for family. It's been written in Current Biography that before leaving his six-month stint in the Army in 1959 Nader acquired four dozen cheap, sturdy military socks from the PX that by the mid-Eighties he still hadn't worn out. Thoreau would have liked that. The man hears a different drummer indeed. In his glory days of major accomplishments as a consumer advocate -- a legacy so pervasive we're barely aware of it, though it has saved many lives -- Nader worked stolidly through the system right at the time -- the Sixties -- when the Counterculture was at its peak The Crusader, the Idealist, Nader is a stubborn man whose stands have won battles and infuriated many. His rigidity, his nerdiness: rising to prominence in the Sixties and Seventies, he never adopted the looser, more florid style of the time but always kept to the monastic suit and tie and short hair.

Spurred by a good friend's becoming handicapped after a car accident, Nader first came to national and international prominence by fighting Detroit for safer cars, the Chevrolet Corvair being a famous target. This was to be an epic battle in which the auto manufacturers tried to dig up dirt against him and bait him with prostitutes; he fought back with lawsuits and won. Nader has tackled government agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration. In his battles to keep the air and water clean, provide safe food and decent nursing homes, protect forests and many other things, Nader has founded literally dozens of non-profit organizations. The list is so long the film can't quite keep up; it's best on the early period of advocacy for auto safety. "Nader's Raiders" -- the popular name for the hundreds of young activists who came to Washington to work with Nader in suited, hard-working teams -- provide some of the many talking heads who reminisce, besides the angry opponents. (Largely missing: corporate critics.) Jimmy Carter's presidency was a turning point. Nader felt betrayed by Carter, who seemed so friendly at first, and by some of his former associates who went to work in government agencies. Nader will not compromise. People in government have to. For Nader, that was unacceptable.

Some other points: Nader is a "consumer advocate," but that doesn't mean he's pro-consumption (remember the socks). Perhaps Nader's attitude toward the democrats goes back to his issues with Carter. It's not difficult to point out the many ways that Clinton as president was pro-business, anti-welfare; that he did not keep the promise of a national health service. With a different façade, Nader points out, Clinton continued many of the pro-corporate, neo-liberal policies of Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Nader's defies the two-party system. Nader holds, as the film shows, that any independent candidate who knuckles under when the final push to election time begins and throws in his support to the democratic candidate is telling the Republicans and Democrats that they can do whatever they want. It's essential to have a third party that's a real threat. And the reason why this is so is that there is not a big difference between the two parties. Still: George W. Bush no worse than Al Gore? One critic says Nader is a Leninist: he implicitly wants things to get worse to force a change. Not quite true -- he's just fed up with the principle of the "least worst" -- but few of us who live in these United States can be so uncompromising, so maddeningly self-righteous and rigid -- and often so surprisingly right despite everyone else saying otherwise. In short, few of us are like Ralph Nader. If those who voted for him in 2000 had foreseen the disaster that is the current administration have done so? But would the world not be measurably worse without him? That's what this fascinating film challenges us to consider. Don't we need more, not fewer, such people?

Watching this, I realized that I hadn't come to a hard conclusion on the "Nader effect on the election" debate. This movie presented that aspect of Nader's career in a comprehensive and balanced way. Although I tended to feel that Gore should have won the 2000 election by a landslide, and that it never should have come down to vote counting in one state, this movie really had me wavering until it became obvious that trying to blame Nader for Gore's loss (and arguably, ours) is like blaming the umpire in baseball if your team loses-- if it comes down to that, then you just haven't done your job.

So, hat's off to Ralph-- there just aren't enough people like him.

It's amusing to see all these hot topic liberals in 2000 supporting Ralph Nader and then running away as quickly as possible in 2004. This speaks volumes about what's wrong with the US political system. Don't vote your conscious, vote convenience. What better way to preserve the status quo? Michael Moore in particular is shown in 2000 in New York in this film praising Ralph Nader at an event at Madison Square Gardens. Four yeas later he's literally grovelling on his knees and asking Nader not to run. I'm not a Green but Nader is a stubborn son-of-a-bitch and that's exactly what's needed in US politics, people who are unrelenting and don't give up no matter how badly the odds are stacked against them. Those people are the best activists. I really wish though that Nader had sat down in front of the building holding the Presidential debates in 2000 and allowed himself to get arrested. It could have put him over the top. It would have made for great optics.

This documentary is a chronicle of Ralph Nader's life and times, with an above-average dose of commentators. They are many: Nader's associates and many journalists, and others ranging from Phil Donahue to Pat Buchanan, but the latter is there for additional perspective on Nader, not debating points. Indeed, while the commentators support the documentary narrative on Nader's background, activities (including Nader's Raiders), and accomplishments, the biggest debate is on whether Nader did the right thing in not abandoning his independent Presidential bid in 2000 and perhaps costing Al Gore the election.

Some material on Nader's background is included, from his birth in Winsted, Ct. His parents were Lebanese immigrants. His mother was a political activist, and his father ran a restaurant and a bakery, helping shape Nader's lifelong affection for the marketplace and the consumer, as well as political discourse, for the restaurant was a haven for political discussion. The town-meeting-type government, in which Nader's family participated, with citizens voting on laws, was seen by Nader as pure democracy at work. Nader was bright and went to Harvard Law School, and he had a friend become paraplegic because of an auto accident.

Nader has championed many consumer issues. Auto safety, Nader's first claim to fame, is focused on most early and prominently and is a recurring theme, perhaps most appropriately. He took on GM, Ford, and Chrysler on seat belts to pollution control to steering mechanisms, and this is covered well, along with their twisted efforts to discredit him (even by extremely sleazy methods invading his privacy).

As for Nader's candidacy for President in 2000, the commentators debate extensively and, at some moments, venomously. He arguably cost Gore the election versus a reactionary President, and was his staying in until the end justified? But Nader ran because of what he believed in, thinking Democrats had become too much like Republicans. As the documentary covers at length, this had been a theme of Nader's political existence since the time of Nixon and Ford. Jimmy Carter turned out to be undependable in Nader's eyes, but the big problem really arose with the election of Reagan, the force of whose personality made people forget the difference between right and wrong, including on consumer issues. Regulations with their roots in Nader were opposed and sometimes successfully thrown out. Nader saw a lack of sympathy and agreement with his concerns continue through Democratic President Bill Clinton, whose Vice President was Gore. All in all, Nader's stubbornness in 2000 can be attributed to long-time frustration, not just recent events. Hence, the title of the movie, based on George Bernard Shaw's quote.

Nader's contribution on environmental (clean water and air) and safety matters outside of autos could have been discussed a little more. Another possible item for inclusion might have been some specifics on some laws and regulations, enacted and recommended; then, it might have been interesting to hear debate on whether he was right or was going too far, etc. However, this documentary ran more than two hours as is, and it is very well done; it will be thoroughly enjoyed by anyone interested in the subject matter.