An Unreasonable Man
I watched a surprisingly good movie last night. An Unreasonable Man, a documentary on the life of Ralph Nader, chronicles the life of a complex man, whose numerous accomplishments have been largely overshadowed by his villainous personae. If we skim the surface, we see that Ralph Nader spoiled the 2000 election for the democrats, and insodoing, helped bring to power one of the worst administrations in U.S. history. This documentary helps us look a bit deeper.
First, An Unreasonable Man helps to dispell the narrow associations of “Nader-as-villain” by educating the viewer on Nader’s vast array of accomplishments. We learn that Nader was a great man on all accounts, serving as the fearless leader protecting consumer America from the numerous dangers of unregulated business. Nearly every post-1960s bill addressing consumer safety, labor rights, and environmental protection can be traced to Ralph Nader.
The documentary also succeeds in juxtaposing his early victories and popularity with his later downfall in the eyes of the mainstream media. We learn that his decision to run for president stemmed from a deep desire to change a political system he felt was lacking in diversity of opinion. He felt that, by the 1990s, both the Democratic and Republican establishments had been bought by big business, and were both destined to fail in their ability to represent those that had elected them. As an independent candidate, he would have the ability to run on a platform centered on defending the health and well-being of the common citizen rather than protecting the interests of those in positions of power.
Instead, he was vilified, especially by the Democratic establishment that considers his presidential aspirations an act of sabatoge. Al Gore, they say, lost Florida in 2000 by 537 votes. If Nader had not run for president, his 90,000+ votes would have gone mostly to Gore, changing the course of history forever. While both sides of the argument are presented fairly in An Unreasonable Man, it becomes clear how problematic are the claims of the Democrats. The outcome of a national election is based on an innumerable and incredibly complex list of causes. This is articulated well during the coverage of the 2004 election (in which Nader was also called a sabateur). Sure, Nader may very well have taken votes from John Kerry. But the more important questions include:
- Why did Kerry lose registered democrats to the Republicans during the course of the election?
- Why did Kerry allow the swift boat veterans to smear his name, especially when George W. Bush did not serve at all?
- Was the democratic campaign run as efficiently as possible?
- Was Joe Lieberman the best choice for vice-president?
The list could go on indefinitely. Each of the above items, if confronted seriously, could have yielded a massive change in votes received. Unfortunately, it is easier to point the finger at those pesky third-party candidates like Ralph Nader or Ross Perot (who is blamed by Republicans for Clinton’s victory in 1992).
Finally, An Unreasonable Man has a lot to say on the topic of democracy in the United States. Nader’s fall from grace is a tragic display of both the bipolarity and insularity of our political system. Nader was not only ousted from the process because he was a third party candidate. He was ousted because he did not represent the values of the two political monoliths in this country. He argues convincingly that to be a modern politician is to bow to the authority of the masters; to toe the line of the party establishment. Any adherence to the people that have elected you is a secondary exercise that can be disguised as primary so long as you have the blessings of your party and the blessings of big business, both of which fund and endorse the marketing, outreach efforts, and propaganda central to a successful modern campaign.
Was Ralph Nader right to run for president in 2000 and 2004? Was his bid worth the deterioration of his lobbying empire and the destruction of his reputation? I think he certainly underestimated the forces that he was up against. I think, had he had the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, he would have opted against such a campaign in favor of continuing the lobbying efforts that have delivered great benefits over the years. In my opinion, his failure says less about his ability to lead than it does about the sad state of politics that burdens this country.
While I have not always been a Nader supporter, equipped with a small slice of Nader’s life of accomplishments and failures, I must say that I respect him and consider him a great American. I am confident that others who reach out and give this movie a chance will come to the same conclusion.
