Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Is Ralph Nader an Unreasonable Man?

By Chuleenan Svetvilas, AlterNet. Posted March 9, 2007.


A new documentary directed by Steve Skrovan and Henriette Mantel asks viewers to decide whether Nader was a man of principle or a man who fell behind the times.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Chuleenan Svetvilas

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

What Is Ralph Nader's Legacy? An Unreasonable Man tries to answer this question as it chronicles Ralph Nader's life and career as a public interest attorney, consumer advocate, and presidential candidate. The two-hour documentary opens with a George Bernard Shaw quote: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." This is the theme the film is intent on proving -- that Nader is a man of uncompromising principles and it is those principles that have guided his decisions throughout his career.

The first scene shows Nader announcing his 2004 presidential candidacy followed by James Carville's response, claiming that there was no other person on the face of the earth for whom he had greater contempt than Nader. Nation magazine columnist Eric Alterman proceeds to thank Nader for the Iraq war, the tax cuts, the destruction of the environment and the destruction of the Constitution. Alterman and journalism professor Todd Gitlin later describe Nader as a "megalomaniac" and "intellectually dishonest," among other things. Ouch.

Clearly, many people blame Nader as the reason Al Gore lost the election in 2000, and they were even angrier when he decided to run again in 2004. Directors Steve Skrovan and Henriette Mantel, who formerly worked for Nader in the late '70s, set out to remind us of his career as an unparalleled advocate for consumer protection and to examine whether Nader deserves to be the Democrats' scapegoat.

Over the years, Nader has crafted a stunning track record on behalf of consumers, including the establishment of government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the passage of landmark legislation, including automobile safety laws, the Freedom of Information Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, as well as the founding of numerous public interest organizations. He and his various public interest organizations have been responsible for numerous consumer protections, such as making air bags and seatbelts standard car features and product labeling de rigueur.

The most fascinating part of the film begins with his 1965 book Unsafe at Any Speed, which exposed the lack of safety in the design of the Corvair, a car manufactured by General Motors. We see clips from the Congressional hearings that resulted from the book's publication. And we learn that he successfully sued General Motors for invasion of privacy when the corporation hired detectives to find information that could damage his reputation. However, they didn't find anything -- to this day his personal life remains a mystery even to his friends -- and he used the settlement money for future advocacy work. Nader's storied career as a consumer activist was launched.

His work inspired scores of college students (dubbed Nader's Raiders) to work for him and write reports on a plethora of consumer issues ranging from water pollution to the FDA's weak oversight of the food industry. Archival footage of enthusiastic students offers a glimpse of how inspiring Nader was. Many former Nader's Raiders fondly recollect their experiences working for him.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: ralph nader, election2000, election04, an unreasonable man

Chuleenan Svetvilas is a freelance writer who lives in Oakland, Calif. Her writings on film have appeared in Dox, Documentary, and Release Print magazines.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What would I call Nader?
Posted by: colinmeister on Mar 9, 2007 4:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Simple - a greedy trial lawyer. Trial lawyers who win large settlements just increase the costs of companies we buy goods from, and these costs are passed on to the consumer.

Ralph Nader is a rich man, who has helped himself very well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What would I call colinmeister? Posted by: colinmeister
» RE: What would I call colinmeister? Posted by: peacefullaim
» Don't Forget.... Posted by: CatDad
» That Is A Very Good Point! Posted by: Douglas
» RE: What would I call Nader? Posted by: guleblanc
Nader isn't to blame for Democrats' failings
Posted by: mark_proulx on Mar 9, 2007 6:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The proposition that Ralph Nader is to blame for the failure of Democrats to win in 200 and 2004 is laughable. The Democrats lost because they refused to evolve into vertebrates. They ran campaigns based on vauge, non-committal positions targeted at the mythical "center" rather than standing for progressive values. They deserved to lose. The sad part is that they pulled the rest of us down with them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yet ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
» RE: Yet ... Posted by: pingoo
» Name calling aside ... Posted by: AdamSelene40
» I respectfully disagree... Posted by: CatDad
» I agree Posted by: Lincoln fan
Bless the unreasonable people!
Posted by: Lizmv on Mar 9, 2007 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do I care that Nader is unreasonable and uncompromising? Absolutely not! Had he been "reasonable" or "compromising" none of his good work would have been accomplished.
Do I care that Bush is unreasonable and uncompromising? Yes! Hundreds of thousands have died because because of his unreasonable and uncompromising "principles".
Nader is responsible "for the Iraq war, the tax cuts, the destruction of the environment and the destruction of the Constitution."? No, Bush and Company are responsible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I stand corrected Posted by: Lizmv
I'm torn....
Posted by: dikaiosyne on Mar 9, 2007 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I torn between supporting Nader and wishing him to retire to managing a bath house in San Francisco. I still have trouble forgiving him for causing GM to stop production of the Corvair. One of the finest and most fun vehicles to drive during the mid-60's. Then again I'm torn from supporting him because he can contribute to the defeat of any Democrat nominee in 2008. As far as him being a man of principle?.....Can any lawyer be principled when they use bad science and fanciful oratory (usually not based in fact or reality) to win Big Bucks from unfortunate business targets? I especially like these Class action lawyers that take the lion's share of judgements and leave slim pickings for the alleged "victims". Caring compassionate predatory lawyers. Nader just happens to one of the better known predators.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm torn.... Posted by: Lincoln fan
All Progress Depends On "Unreasonable" People Like Ralph Nader!
Posted by: Douglas on Mar 9, 2007 7:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George Bernard Shaw once wrote: "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

It is Ralph Nader's "unreasonableness"-- his persistence in trying to make our nation more democratic, less responsive to the demands and imperatives of the corporations and more responsive to the needs and wishes of ordinary citizens, and less destructive of our physical environment--that has led to much social progress during the last several decades. Our country needs many more "unreasonable" people like Nader. It is the "reasonable" people--the Bill and Hillary Clintons, the Nancy Pelosis and George Dubyas--that have been responsible for most of our problems. Beware the "reasonable" person!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Third Party
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Mar 9, 2007 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not a Green Party member for the same reason that many others are not. That is, that third parties can't win. I wish one could --- but it can't.

Even worse than that, third parties come up with platforms that would be best for the working class. Then when these parties fail, the DLC claims that the policies have no support. They move farther to the right to try to snare more conservative votes and more corporate money. Both parties are steadily moving farther to the right.

To me, it's clear that the working class can't win with a third party nor with either of the major parties under our current paradigm. I believe that we must work our system from a different angle. We need a new strategy. Elections aren't working. The corporate establishment controls both parties and is moving them both to the right. I think that we the people can take control of both parties and move them to the left, toward the mainstream.

In my opinion a reasonably sized grassroots movement, requiring far fewer numbers than a successful third party, can work before the election to dictate the platforms of both parties and put them in the mainstream. This strategy would put the voters in the enviable postion that the corporatocracy is in today; in control of both parties. If we control both parties it won't matter too much which party wins.

This strategy, The Lincoln Initiative, doesn't require an organization, coordination, or financing. It takes each participant a few minutes spare time, before the party conventions, to tell both parties his/her own most important issue. This is the issue that will decide whether he/she will vote for one of the parties or cast a write-in protest vote for "Honest Abe". This gives both parties a chance to compete for each participants vote. The only additional point of participation is to recruit participants into the movement.
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Third Party Posted by: logansafi
» RE: Third Party Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Third Party Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Christ almighty Posted by: animalleaderisgreat
» RE: Christ almighty Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Third Parties can't win? Posted by: freebie_grabber
Karp's disciple
Posted by: Karp's disciple on Mar 9, 2007 8:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nader wasn't responsible for Gore's loss. Gore and his team of political hacks were responsible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

my vote didn't ever belong to Gore or Kerry
Posted by: mincho on Mar 9, 2007 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Many of those that accuse Nader of costing the Democrats the elections in 2000 and 2004 assume that the people voting for Nader would have voted for a Democrat. I would have simply not voted had Nader not been an option. Democracy is only a reality if we can choose for whom to vote...I will not give into a monopoly of power by two vested groups

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

While I agree that Gore and Kerry could have run better campaigns,
Posted by: Ellie1 on Mar 9, 2007 9:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nader seems to rise from the grave once every 4 years to get as much attention as he can. Why? Could it be greed or is he just an egomaniac? He has nothing to say or do in between elections, and has been irrelevent for a long time. Anyone who wasted their vote on him can also think about the tragedy of over 3,000 american lost lives they have caused by their vote. My philosophy is that 50% of the American people are on the whole stupid and uninformed, and will do anything to stay that way. Don't bother me, give me American Idol and Nascar. I want a draft, maybe these lazy ignorant bastards will get off their asses when their kids are drafted and dead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Get over yourself Douglas Posted by: harpy
Didn't Rrepublicans control the Senate for most of Reagan's term?
Posted by: Thucy on Mar 9, 2007 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The writer says that Reagan had to work with Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate. As I recall, the Republicans had a majority in the Senate for the first six of the eight years of Reagan's presidency. This was especially important in the weeks after Reagan survived an assassination attempt, during his first year in office, when there was a huge public surge of "support the president" sentiment that enabled him to pass his first, and most destructive budget, along with its restructured, less progressive tax system. Southern Democrats -- many of whom eventually eventually switched parties anyway -- worked with Republicans in the House and Senate to ram through the worst of the legislation, despite the efforts of Tip O'Neil and the more progressive Dems in the House.

Sounds like a good movie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nader
Posted by: kelt65 on Mar 9, 2007 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While I don't personally care for him - he is anti union, for example and quite the vanguardist liberal - he certainly better than any other choices that were out there.

The fault isn't Naders for Bush being elected. the fault is the American voters and theirs alone, they're just too ignorant and selfish.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "he is anti union" - NOT Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Is Nader "anti-union"? Posted by: freebie_grabber
» Excellent post Posted by: harpy
» Stop scapegoating. Posted by: freebie_grabber
Nader's glaring mistake
Posted by: kevred on Mar 9, 2007 9:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I go back and forth over my feelings on his presidential bids. On one hand, I do think he was a damaging distraction for progressives at a crucial moment. On the other hand, I hate to discourage anyone from participating in democracy, especially someone with ideals I admire as much as I do Nader's.

What clarifies things for me, though, is his oft-used statement that the Democratic and Republican parties are the same.

You can say that they're both deep in the pockets of corporate America. You can say that they're choosing power over the people. You can say a lot of things about them and be right.

But after 6+ years of Republican dominance of the White House and Congress (not to mention many of the courts), you cannot say they're the same. The Democrats might have disregarded the real needs for change at the grass-roots level, and they've bent under the wind of polls and popularity contests, but they wouldn't have started a needless war with Iraq, they wouldn't have decimated environmental law, they wouldn't have rescinded so many freedoms in the name of "freedom".

They wouldn't have avoided these things out of the goodness of their hearts, but what separates the two parties is the aggressive, destructive neoconservative agenda that's driving the modern Republican party. The Dems might have many sins of omission, but far fewer overreaching, destructive acts based on extreme ideology--they simply don't have the mania, the drive to create all the damage the Republicans have wrought.

Of course Nader's right that neither party is representing the interests of the people. But he's dead wrong that there's no distinction between them. To not see the coming disaster that was George W. Bush, to not recognize it as something unusual, and to make Gore equivalent to that, is a massively stupid thing to do. That's why, for all the truly great and noble things Nader has worked for in his life, and for all his greatness as an iconoclastic individual, I consider him a fool for his 2000 bid.

Hindsight's always 20/20, and perhaps the energy of such a high-profile run was energizing to a segment of the progressive base, but I always thought he'd have been better off working on a nationwide grass-roots effort back then instead of taking the hail-mary shot for the presidency. Dean successfully did it later, and Bernie Sanders has made a career out of it. Nader would really be a hero if he'd helped us be a few years ahead of our current pace with that.

kevingamble.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nader's glaring mistake Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Nader's glaring mistake Posted by: kevred
» RE: Nader's glaring mistake Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: Nader's glaring mistake Posted by: kevred
» kevred Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Fair points Posted by: kevred
» I didn't say he had... Posted by: kevred
» Wrong, Douglas. Posted by: kevred
» RE: Nader's glaring mistake Posted by: logansafi
» RE: Nader's glaring mistake Posted by: jmooney
Corvairs were fun to drive
Posted by: boing007 on Mar 9, 2007 9:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm torn....
Posted by: dikaiosyne on Mar 9, 2007 7:14 AM
I torn between supporting Nader and wishing him to retire to managing a bath house in San Francisco. I still have trouble forgiving him for causing GM to stop production of the Corvair. One of the finest and most fun vehicles to drive during the mid-60's.

I drove a Corvair once and almost got killed.
I was going down Laurel Canyon into Studio City
at about 30 mph and when I positioned the steering
wheel to follow the lefthand curve, the car
veered off to the right instead. Piece of junk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A couple of things
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Mar 9, 2007 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
> Nader's legacy as a veteran consumer activist gets overshadowed
> by his 2000 and 2004 foray into presidential politics

The two are not as discontinuous as this statement might suggest.

What happened, according to him, was that the doors of various members of congress became closed to private citizen activists such as him sometime during the Reagan years. Previously, he had been able to bring matters of importance to their attention when this was called for. At least he would get a fair hearing. This stopped.

What happened twenty years ago was the political establishment became almost entirely impervious to outside influence -- unless one was a big campaign contributor. Reagan is remembered, among other things, for being "the teflon president", but the phenomenon really extended to almost all our elected representatives in Washington.

So, someone on the outside can do what so many others do: write books and make the brief rounds of the talkshow circuit plugging same. Nader's done this, too.

By 1990, he was talking about starting a third party, because the D's had by then become useless for progressive causes, which is pretty much where they still are today. The DLC story is fairly well-known around here. In 1992, he was a write-in 'protest' (or none-of-the-above) candidate in both the New Hampshire and Massachusetts primaries, though he's never been a member of the Democratic Party. In 1996, he was drafted by the Green Party to be their presidential candidate. The rest is better-known history. I just didn't want people to get the impression he just popped onto the scene in 2000.

Regardless of what one thinks of him, being the third party candidate with the most name recognition does give one a slightly higher profile and better soapbox than just coming out with an occasional book.

The other thing that tends to get lost in the noise is Nader's consistent urging for all of us to become more engaged citizen activists, regardless of what issues are most important to us or what particular positions we take, to think of citizen involvement as way more than always just dutifully showing up on election day. It's the fundamental transformation from passive consumer of politics to being a producer/creator (if you want to use those terms), and he's inspired thousands or tens of thousands to make the jump. Ultimately, we're all better off because of this 'vitamin-shot' to the body politic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A couple of things Posted by: freebie_grabber
» RE: A couple of things Posted by: kevred
Failures and Successes
Posted by: boing007 on Mar 9, 2007 10:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of hurling invectives at each other why
don't all of you independent-minded people
work together and forge a new party. The
fact that each of you represents a single party
or movement will not help us end the Democrat/
Republican impasse. We share many ideas, so stop
haggling and start the ball rolling. Just think for a
minute, there are over 100 plus million registered
voters who never vote in a Presidential election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Failures and Successes Posted by: Lincoln fan
» How many do we need? Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Tsk Tsk Douglass. Posted by: Lincoln fan
Not a Dime's Worth of Difference
Posted by: rwa on Mar 9, 2007 10:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Corporate Crime and Congress
By CORPORATE CRIME REPORTER

When it comes to corporate crime and violence, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime.

At least, that would be the impression we got after listening in on today's subcommittee hearing on corporate crime.

On one side, George Bush's Justice Department, weakly and meekly defending its McNulty memo and the Department's ability to investigate corporate criminal activity.

On the other, Republicans, Democrats--including full House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-Michigan)--corporations, their defense lawyers, and the American Bar Association--flexing their collective muscles and beating up on federal prosecutors.

All want to hog tie the Justice Department and its ability investigate corporate criminal activity.

The McNulty memo--also known as Principles of Federal Prosecution of Business Organizations--tells prosecutors that they must consider nine factors in deciding whether or not to charge a corporation--including dreaded factor number six--"the corporation's timely and voluntary disclosure of wrongdoing and its willingness to cooperate in the investigation of its agents."

Cooperation often means turning over the internal investigation that was conducted by the company's lawyers.

This report is often considered a roadmap for the prosecution.

Without it--and without the company's cooperation--corporate criminal prosecutions are rarely successful.

And so, last year, big business ganged up to make it more difficult for prosecutors to get these internal investigations.

They pressured the Justice Department to amend the memo so that a prosecutor in the field must first go to Main Justice to get approval for privilege waivers.

Columbia Law Professor John Coffee believes that this requirement "went a bridge too far."

"Under the McNulty memo, the government doesn't say it can't ask for that study," Coffee said. "But it requires that it has to be approved by the Assistant Attorney General running the Criminal Division. And that is higher up than the typical young prosecutor will be comfortable going."

But even the McNulty memo fix--requiring approval of Main Justice--wasn't enough to satisfy the big business lobby--and their Democratic and the Republican lackeys in Congress.

They want more.

And Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) has given them the bill they want.

Specter's bill would outright prohibit federal prosecutors from seeking privilege waivers or considering a corporation's willingness to waive privilege voluntarily when evaluating its cooperation.

And according to Michael Seigel, a Professor of Law at the University of Florida College of Law, such a prohibition would result in "a significant slowdown of white-collar criminal prosecutions--exactly what the business lobby wants."

Professor Coffee says he "cannot say what the statistical impact of such a prohibition would be--no one can."

"But it would remove a very important tactic that has proven effective," Coffee told Corporate Crime Reporter. "And worse, it would signal to prosecutors that the Congress and the public no longer supported such prosecutions."
full article

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'll take BEHIND THE TIMES any day...
Posted by: fifthworld on Mar 9, 2007 11:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is "old" is what is essential and important, what endures and remains of value. What "lasts"!! Especially and all the more pertinent when that means being a person of austere integrity, unphased by modern America's crassness, pettiness, materialism and agonizing technophilia.

Nader is one of a kind, and I am grateful my parents raised me with his name in the air in the 70s, so I could be conscious enough to vote for him in 2000 and piss off so many lame-brained cowardly LEMMOCRATS!

As for "realism", to quote Caroline Casey (visionaryactivist.org), "The situation is so dire we cannot afford the luxury of realism."

Thanks Ralph for a life well lived and still in the making, by the way. (He's not dead yet, as the careless phrasing of the opening for this article could imply!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nader and taking back the process
Posted by: truthteller on Mar 9, 2007 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I first remember hearing about Nader in the mid-60's as a kid, when the whole GM thing was getting press. My father thought, and still thinks, he's a nut job, but he is one of my personal heroes. I started out in college in pre-law partly with the Nader's Raiders ideal in mind. To me, people like Ralph, who walk the walk, deserve our respect and admiration. I think the only other person of that era I admire as much would be the late Harry Chapin, who gave half of his concert proceeds to charity. In fact Nader spoke at the memorial concert for Harry in '87. Ralph is still someone I greatly admire, for foregoing a "normal" life, living almost a monastic existance so as not to "sell-out" his prinicples. As was said elsewhere, he doesn't even own a car.

I voted for Nader in '00, but swallowed hard and voted for and gave money to Kerry/Edwards in '04, but the Rethugs still managed to steal the election again. I don't regret my 2000 vote. I justified it on the basis of not hurting Gore, because he took Maryland anyway. Nader has been the only candidate in my memory to make repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act a major plank in his platform. The more I look back on that vote, the more I think I was right because of the direction that Lieberman has gone in. I worked for John Anderson in 1980, and don't regret that effort either. I never vote Rethuglican, but I don't always vote Democratic either. I was really pissed that Carter had tried to gut Amtrak the previous year, even though we were in the middle of the second oil crisis.

As progressive talk radio host and author Thom Hartmann likes to point out, the way our system was set up, there really is no effective way for there to be more than two competative political parties at the same time. The last time there was a major realignment of the parties was when the Republicans displaced the Whigs in the late 1850's. That was before the modern era of incredible corporate influence in both the parties and the media, and huge sums of cash corrupting the system. This makes it extremely unlikely a third party can gain enough traction to challenge either political "brand".

Therefore, the only way we can ever hope to have a chance at taking back the Country for average, working people is to take back the Democratic Party from the DLC Corporatists, and the hack consultants like snakehead Carville and perennial loser Bob Shrum. Those in control of the Country right now make it really hard for average people to find time to be good citizens. They are forced to either work lots of overtime, or multiple jobs just to keep up. Some of this is self-inflicted by the over-reaching, who have become uber-materialistic, but the people who need to get involved the most are just struggling to get by. Maybe they find time to vote on election day, but that's about it.

We really need to reorder our lives to make citizenship and activism more respected and expected. When I think that tens of thousands of ordinary people walked and rode horses to hear the Lincoln/Douglas debates for hours in the broiling Summer heat of 1858 - a Senate campaign mind you, not a presidential one - then I think that we can all spend a few hours more every couple of years to take back our Country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Change the System Posted by: hbw
» even better Posted by: Lincoln fan
Ralph is the only reasonable man in US politics
Posted by: Ghoulman on Mar 9, 2007 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are talking about a guy who is not some lefty Democrat demagogue but a real man of action who is responsible for some of the most notable achievements in legislation. The seatbelt thing alone. In the past he didn't play politics with his career but worked with government and industry to create reasonable and life-saving regulation and legislation.

Good government. That's what it should be like.

It's too bad he's such a smart cookie in the most corrupt place on earth; Washington.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Truthteller makes the most sense, by far...
Posted by: Blade on Mar 9, 2007 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything you said was right on, truthteller.
Why is it, though, some of these people just want to argue, and come up with "paths of" MOST RESISTANT ideas?

That Nader was the only one in my lifetime (am 55) I can remember that even mentioned the f--king Taft-Hartley Act makes him remarkable.

If you have been in the working world as long as I have, you'll know a lot of our troubles stem from the fact the most workers have absolutely no power, collectively, which multiplies corporate power exponentially in every area, every issue. Worker have no voice, no forum, no one to stand up for them.

The recent article in AlterNet about the disappearing middle class (bourgeoisie) breaks my heart, but what about the ass-kicking the WORKING CLASS have been taking for years? Nader stood up for us all, even the lowly worker who had money to contribute to the parties.

Personally, I wish he had stood down in 2004, because I had a foreboding of what would happen. Things got a lot worse when Nixon got elected the second time, and I knew the same would happen, only worse, with Shrub's administration.

Nevertheless, Nader is to be admired, not denigrated.

Happy trails, or trials, Blade.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

realitycheck
Posted by: Sakkara on Mar 9, 2007 2:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What most people on this post don't seem to get is that Nader did lose the 2000 election for the democrats, and possibly the 2004 as well. It is true the democrats are spineless and disorganized (this disorganization comes largely from the multitude of differing opinions within the party, which is a good thing to have in a democracy). It's true they ran poor campaigns both times. BUT-- the small percentage of voters Nader took would definitely have put Gore ahead in 2000, and would possibly have done the same in 2004 for Kerry.
And why are people either saying Nader is great or he is awful? I propose to you he is both. Throughout his career he has done some incredible things for consumers and for the planet, and deserves a lot of credit in that regard. However, by running in 2000, depsite knowing he couldn't win, he has caused an unprecedented destruction of consumer rights, reversed decades of environmental progress, and he has put in jeopardy the very Constitution on which our country is based. All because of ego and shortsightedness. At the end of the day, when everything is weighed, the net result of his actions is negative. It seems to me the Nader of the 1960s should be disgusted with the Nader of today for what he has single-handedly wrought upon this nation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: realitycheck Posted by: animalleaderisgreat
» RE: realitycheck Posted by: MartianBachelor
» also Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: realitycheck Posted by: Sakkara
Lesser of Two Evils Is Not The Way!
Posted by: sofla100 on Mar 9, 2007 6:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, in 2000, if the way America elected Presidents was done the proper way, by popular vote, nobody would be able to blame Nader. But, neither Democrats nor Republicans have wanted to change the antiquated electoral college, not enough to do the necessary constitutional ammendment. So, blaming Nader I feel is disengenuous. The guy is damned if he does and damned if he does not. Sure, Al Gore would have been better then GW Bush as President, but so would most anybody! The solution is not to blame Nader for bringing progressive ideas and causes to the forefront of American Politics, just who is going to do it? As for 2008, if the Dems bring on Hillary or Obama, just what choice do Americans have between them and some Republican clown? Blaming Ralph, always compromising, always "paying the devil" for the sake of the lesser of two evils, just where has it gotten any of us, where has it gotten America? As for the 2000 election, don't think for a minute that down here in Florida, the outcome was not decided by baby Jebber and Katherine Harris and the Diebold machines, long before election day anyhow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Quit blaming Nader and the electoral college. Bush won by a larger majority in '04.
Posted by: Sojourner on Mar 9, 2007 7:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The evidence that the Shrub is nothing more than a spoiled rotten rich kid who grew up to be a CEO was perfectly clear by 2004. The Demos spent as much money as the Rethugs. Nader was not even a sideshow in 2004. Yes, Ohio's electoral shenanigans are a disgrace.

But what about the other states with close contests? I don't for a minute believe that the Demo votes were Mr. Clean. Elections are for stealing. Always have been. Always will be (? maybe not).

Something is wrong with the American ELECTORATE, when someone like W is even taken seriously. He left Texas a disaster, just as with all the corporations he ran. By 2004, we knew him to be a bald-faced liar under the influence of Rasputin Cheney. And still he got re-elected. That's insane.

The American electorate is insane or stupid or maybe just incompetent. "We've given you a Republic, if you can keep it" someone said after the Constitutional Convention.

Well, we've lost it. We'd rather have a phony dictator lift the burdens of democracy from our shoulders. Why bother with self-governance? Who says freedom is precious? Just protect us from the big bad outside world and we will let you walk all over us. The USA is where it belongs--in the gutter. Is it any surprise we are eating the crap that collects there?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"President Nader"
Posted by: Mr. Heathen on Mar 9, 2007 10:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds pretty good to me. Just think about how different things would be with an anti-corruption crusader refusing a "CROWN" in favor of a "presidency".
Pessimistsssss insisted he could not win. Before his campaign began and having never held public office, he was polling 1-13% in states where people knew of him.( While circulating petitions, in 2000, I had to carry a picture of him.) He only needed to get into the "debates" to be recognized. To win a three-way race, he would have had to carry a few big states -such as California.
But, this is history. That window has closed. There are no other progressives who can win this time. Optimists will likely concentrate on other races.
Thank you Ralph Nader, for spanking the DNC, which allowed for liberals to move up instead of just more conservatives. It's just a small improvement, but I still have my dreams.
-President Heathen

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fascist Electoral Politics
Posted by: corylus on Mar 9, 2007 10:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Creating democracy from the remains of Lincoln's beard, or whatever your "initiative" involves: the ONLY reason a third party "can't win" in American politics is because the two-headed hydra ate democracy alive with tactics we generally would consider "banana republic." Welcome to American politics, where democratic priniciples have long since died, and where progressive ideas get slandered, then co-opted, then watered down, then abandoned. The Repulicrat Party is not the answer: every one of the candidates from either mainstream party should be out on their asses in 2008, or we should tear this decrepit nation down!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:Fascist Electoral Politics. Posted by: Lincoln fan
Limbaugh / Coulter for President !
Posted by: alaskagrrl on Mar 10, 2007 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's the only thing that could siphon enough votes from Republicans to balance the damage a Nader campaign would cause the Democrats.

I personally like what he did in the past -- until he used the Presidential platform to massage his own ego. He HURT America in 2000, then demonstrated his obstinance again in 2004.

Why doesn't he just find a good place to work for good things ? I lately have come to wonder if he's just a Republican Troll in Hemp Clothing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Learn something ? Posted by: alaskagrrl
You have to understand what really happened
Posted by: truthteller on Mar 10, 2007 1:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look, there's plenty of evidence out there that the Neo-Con scumbags stole the last two Presidential elections (and various other state and federal ones before and since). See the writings of Greg Palast, Mark Crispin Miller, Bob Fritakis, Harvey Wasserman, and RFK, Jr. to name a few sources.

Even the MSM came to the conclusion that had ALL the ballots been recounted in FL in '00, Gore would've won by several thousand votes (the news was buried in the back pages over a year after the election). He screwed himself by trying to cherry-pick which ballots would be recounted. This doesn't even take into account the tens of thousands of mostly black and minority voters who were denied their voting rights because they were "mistakenly" classified as convicted felons and not allowed to vote. Clearly, Gore would've won FL and the Presidency by tens of thousands of votes if the system had been honest. Nader was not responsible for Gore not being President, although I think Gore was a weak candidate, since he couldn't even take his home state. He looks really good by comparison now, but he's still part of the establishment problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why the Question?
Posted by: TRC on Mar 10, 2007 7:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The very questioning of whether Ralph Nader is a reasonable man or not is quite symbolic of the degenerate state of political discourse in our country.
Nader has worked against corporate greed, benefited the public through exposing corporate amorality, been instrumental in legislation to protect consumers and citizens, and has, at great expense and risk, challenged corporate candidates in both parties bringing education of our pathetic electoral system to American citizens.
In today's Fox stupid society I suppose it is "reasonable" to cave to corporate pressure and not challenge even the most obvious propaganda.
What a pity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Integrity-Free Neoliberal/Fascist Democrat Assholes are the "Unreasonable" Ones
Posted by: johndoraemi on Mar 11, 2007 7:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What can I say about the Democrats that isn't really f--ing obvious to everyone except to Democrats?

They are sold-out, vicious, pathetic and criminal, do not believe in Democracy, the rule of law or even common sense. Their attacks on Nader exposed the depths to which they had sunk on behalf of their corporate sugar daddies.

Their refusal to impeach and arrest Bush and Co. for so many crimes I can't really bother listing them here speaks volumes. And, their war criminal complicity on Iraq, when they actually controlled the Senate is pretty obvious too.

Americans don't want integrity, honesty or morality. That is the main problem, exposed pretty blatantly by Nader. The Democrats were a disgrace to democracy in focusing their attacks on the Greens, who had very little chance of winning, instead of the Repuclicans, whom Al Gore agreed with on most of the issues in the debates with Shrub.

Add to that the despicable choice of taaming up with Lieberman! And to only recounting some of the Florida counties, instead of all, and the Democrats are a sad, sad shameful story all their own.

Nader didn't beat Gore. Gore beat Gore. ...And I'm still not all that certain Gore was beaten, yet he refused to call for a Congressional investigation, by getting one Dem Senator to sign the bill from the House, as painfully shown in Fahrenheit 911.

God, these corporate asslicking scumbags make me want to vomit, all of them, both major parties, most major media, the whole disgusting pig trough immoral lot of them. Fuck them all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mr. john polifronio
Posted by: johnp on Mar 13, 2007 5:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nader's positive and commendable accomplishments mean little when placed beside his decision to run, repeatedly, for the presidency.

Nader cannot possibly have realisitically believed that he had a chance to be elected. So what could his motives have been? I'll leave that to the psychologists. For my part, I consider Nader a sick, megalomanical prankster and fool. There are a few utterly idiotic arguments made by people, in an effort to pretend that Nader was not responsible for Bush's two wins. These arguments are so pathetic they don't deserve further attention.

Ultimately, I reserve the word asshole to describe Nader, because no other word suffices. I know it's a vague description, but it works for me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]