H 28°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°In the new documentary "An Unreasonable Man," directors Henriette Mantel and Steve Skrovan go to extraordinary lengths to portray Ralph Nader as a capital-G "Great American," a kind of perpetually noble mix between John Wayne and Don Quixote, forever fighting the good fight on behalf of the metaphorical little guy.
I couldn't disagree more. Somehow, I suspect the hundreds of thousands of kids who go to bed every night with visions of their parents dodging IEDs in Iraq would disagree too. I also have to believe the 19-year-old soldier sitting in a dilapidated room in Walter Reed, wondering why he can't find a doctor who will treat the infections on the stumps where his hands used to be, is going to be particularly sympathetic to Nader apologists like Mantel and Skrovan.
"An Unreasonable Man" is the very definition of reckless, disingenuous and intellectually bankrupt filmmaking. The movie is being billed as a thoughtful analysis of Nader's complex legacy, but anybody wanting such insight will need to go elsewhere. Mantel and Skrovan aren't filmmakers — they're cheerleaders, and their documentary (if you can call it that) is nothing more than a two-hour valentine to Ralph Nader's favorite person: Ralph Nader.
The filmmakers seem fundamentally unconcerned with how much blood — if any — Nader has on his hands. This seems to be a relevant question, perhaps the only relevant question, concerning Nader's legacy (unless you count that whole fight with David Stern), and the movie completely ignores it. I'm not making a judgment about the relative merits of the Iraq war, but it is probably fair to say that America would not be at war in Iraq had Al Gore been elected president in 2000. And Gore would have been elected president had Ralph Nader not campaigned for president in the state of Florida.
Did Gore run a good campaign in 2000? No. Did George W. Bush best him at pretty much every turn? Yes. But most rational people seem to agree that Nader and his kamikaze candidacy were instrumental in derailing the hopes of a Gore presidency. This is where the movie loses all credibility and enters the realm of dishonesty: Mantel and Skrovan are so in awe of their subject that they are willing to disregard basic truths and common sense in favor of fierce denials about Nader's impact on the election results. They continually play up his outsider standing, as if saying that there is no way an irrelevant third-party candidate like Nader could have had any effect on taking down Al Gore and Joe Lieberman. This is a curious argument akin to saying a toddler holding a smoking gun couldn't have shot his parent, because he wouldn't have been able to kill him if they were fighting with machetes.
How can you spend half a century advocating progressive reforms and then knowingly put the country you claim to be looking out for in a situation where it will be led by the most conservative president in history? This is the central problem with Nader's legacy, and the movie doesn't address it. There's no red meat here.
When he's on camera, Nader comes off as pathetic and needy. He's a sweaty, stammering bundle of nerves, with ill-fitting shirts and a noncommittal haircut. In short, he looks like what he has always been — a loser disappointed to be consigned to the outside while the popular kids are in the gym enjoying the dance.
Perhaps the most disturbing trend in the movie is the fact that almost every one of Nader's major choices seem to come out of some manufactured feeling of alienation. Friends claim part of his anger with Gore simply came out of the fact that the vice president would not take a meeting whenever Nader came calling. Later, we are treated to an embarrassing batch of footage from 2000 where Nader, angry about not being issued an invitation to debate Vice President Gore and then-Governor of Texas Bush, tries to crash the first presidential debate. At no point does it look like anybody involved with the production took the time to ask Nader about his grandstanding.
The directors allow Nader to slide back and forth between two contrasting personas without calling out the dichotomy: Nader seems trapped between thinking he is totally irrelevant and simultaneously the most important man who has ever lived.
Only a fool would say Nader's early accomplishments should be totally discounted. America has him to thank for more seat belts, safer meat and cleaner air. For a time, he was a force for change in American society. Yes, the movie chronicles his battles with General Motors and Congress, but in focusing so heavily on these early battles and the presidential campaigns, the movie inadvertently reinforces the long-held notion that Nader has become an irrelevant force. Where was Ralph Nader during the Savings and Loan scandals of the 1980s? Where was Ralph Nader during the recent corporate crime outbreak? Where was Ralph Nader when hundreds of thousands of Americans claimed to be disenfranchised in 2000, 2002 and 2004? He had to be doing something, but the movie isn't telling, possibly for the very reason that there is nothing to tell. In the last twenty-odd years, we are forced to draw the conclusion that when the going got tough, Ralph got going.
All of this could be excused if the filmmakers played fair, but they don't. I'll say it again — this movie is a fraud. It allows its subject to run wild and seems terrified to call him on anything. The second half of the film, centering around Nader's presidential campaigns, should be the most dramatic and provocative aspect of the film, but Mantel and Skrovan go out of their way to make excuses for their subject. They bob and weave their way around holding Nader's feet to the flames, even for a little bit. Nader himself never takes the opportunity to show any contrition to his supporters.
To be fair, the movie offers token (if well-reasoned) opposition from the likes of The Nation's Eric Alterman and Columbia University's Todd Gitlin, which ends up being the most challenging and heartfelt part of the movie. But this analysis seems to have been watered down in the editing room (notice how both men seem to frequently get cut off mid-sentence), and it is disingenuously juxtaposed with rambling and contradictory excuses from Nader allies about why the events of the last seven years are everybody's fault but Ralph's. This is not a fair fight.
I'm not buying what Mantel and Skrovan are selling. The things we do in life matter. Your intentions don't matter; it's what you do to the people around you that count. And if you're at all unhappy with the way President Bush has run this country over the last six years, it is certainly reasonable to hold Nader accountable.
Should you forget how you think he helped this country? No. But you should also never forget how you think he hurt this country. After seeing "An Unreasonable Man," I'm no closer to understanding Ralph Nader's legacy than I was before. I don't have the answer, and neither does Ralph. But only one of us seems to be losing any sleep over it.
Grade: 1 out of 5
IP hash: bb9d2f0b
Nader has blood on his hands?! Nader lost the presidency for Gore? Are you kidding me?
What makes you so sure all those people would have voted for Gore? There’s a reason they didn’t vote for the Dems in the first place—they clearly didn’t think their interests were being represented. Most likely many of them would have outright abstained.
Gore lost the election because he couldn’t connect with voters, and because he had no appeal. Gore lost both the left and the center, and Bush succeeded. So where do you get off scapegoating Nader?
IP hash: 61130c88
What a misunderstanding of this film! It is a serious examination of Nader’s legacy, which the viewer may like or dislike. The 2000 election is one thing, but how you can argue with seat belts, freedom of information, safe foods, corporate accountability, etc.!
IP hash: 8b796da2
I would have voted for Bush, twice, if Nader was not on the ballot. The GOP gave Nader money, not Democrats. So how did Nader spoil Gore? Nader is not a Democrat. I am not a Democrat. Why do Democrats claim Nader’s votes? The Democrat Party is worse than the GOP in that, Nader would like to undo what the GOP is doing, and Democrats work to outdo what the GOP is doing. $124 Billion for More Bush war, and impeachment is still off the table. Democrats did to Nader what the GOP could not do for four decades alone. Democrats deserve Bush. I proud of my Nader vote. I hope he runs again.
IP hash: fbf82c6f
Bulletin! This just in. Ray Gustini,Eric Alterman,Todd Gitlin and James Carville have just huddled together and come up with the Answer to the Mystery of who is the Zodiac. Ralph Nader. SEb
IP hash: 2a6e0fa0
Blood on his hands? Dems need to get off their high horse and stop blaming Ralph. In 2000, Ralph wasn’t important enough to be allowed to debate, yet when Gore lost, it instantly became Ralph’s fault. The fact is Gire was outmanoeuvred by Bush and the courts, sad but true. People voted for Ralph because they simply weren’t satisfied by the Democrats. The Democrats are not entitled to non-Republican votes, and as long as they maintain this arrogant assumption, I don’t see things getting better. And as for blaming Ralph for Iraq, come on- we all no where the fault lays on that one.
IP hash: 04272cf9
Ray, such hostility! Do you think you could have made me vote for Al Gore? No one expects anti-war protesters will cast a ballot for a pro-war candidate next year. Similarly, as a Nader voter in 2000, I would never have voted for Gore after his vote in the senate to allow the first President Bush his Gulf War in ‘91.
Back up a moment to the presidential debates. Both Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan should have been in them, but the Republicans and Democrats literally own the show and they kept other parties out. If Nader and Buchanan had been standing on stage next to Bush and Gore, they could have done at least as well as Ross Perot had in ‘92, if not better. A 4-way race would have been wonderful for this country… Just maybe Ralph Nader, who has been best on the issues all along, would have won.
Democrats, allegedly the more humane of the two major parties, have gone out of their way to marginalize Nader — and his supporters — these last seven years. It reminds me of J. Edgar Hoover’s response to another great man, Martin Luther King, Jr. Such treatment of others is just as wrong and disgusting today as it was 40 years ago.
Let us not forget that Al Gore actually did win in 2000. If only you and hate-filled Democrats would channel your passion into fighting for some much needed democratic reforms in our electoral processes!
Meanwhile, I would encourage moviegoers to see the film for themselves. Over 90 percent of a great number of other reviewers (many online) praise it.
IP hash: 2f161719
Wow, you are quite the whiny crybaby, aren’t you?
If GORE had stood for something in 2000, GORE could have won.
If GORE had fought harder to prevent the votes that HE EARNED from being stolen by BUSH then GORE could have won.
If GORE would have tried to earn back the votes of people swayed by Nader then GORE could have won.
The blame for the election results of 2000 belongs with 1) GORE for being such a WUSS and not standing up for himself OR the American people, and 2) GEORGE BUSH for STEALING votes in Florida, and the election!
The blame for the war in Iraq belongs to BUSH for starting it and the American IDIOTS who supported him (not to mention HUNDREDS of Democratic congressman who voted for and supported the war!)
Nader is NOT at fault for these things. Quit trying to use him as a scapegoat and put responsibility where it belongs! It’s really getting pathetic!
IP hash: 91097d90
Instead of blaming Nader, why don’t you blame all the people that voted for Bush, or even better Gore. Nader was by far the most progressive of all the candidates and Gore’s list of accomplishments pale in comparison (you probably believe Gore invented the internet). Also don’t forget Mr. Warhawk Leiberman was Gore’s vice presidential choice. It’s rants like yours and Alterman’s that allow the Democrats to keep putting up mediocre candidates. I voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004 and if given the choice again today would do the same. I vote for the candidate of my choice. That’s what “Democracy” is all about.
IP hash: feee2d13
WOW Mr. Gustini is either on somebodys payroll or hallucinating in a fantasy world. Shame on the Badger Herald for having him on their staff. By the way Ralph only paid 2 visits to Florida one day each during the whole campaign. What a shame there are people that cannot even try to be objective. Look at the CNN polls Gore would never have won even if Ralph was not running. As far as Gore not going into Iraq, wow , what a fallacy.
IP hash: 6c2dff7c
The Democrats' claim that Nader was a "spoiler" who caused Gore's defeat in 2000 is wrong for any number of reasons—not least, the fact that Gore won both the popular vote and the election in Florida that would have given him a win in the Electoral College, but the Democrats were too timid to fight the Republicans' theft of the White House.
But Nader's real crime for Democrats is that his campaign represented a popular challenge to the two-party corporate-dominated system—and the deeply engrained politics of "lesser evilism" that convinces liberals and progressives, time and time again, to support a Democrat who inevitably betrays them without a second thought
IP hash: 51dbae2c
Nader did not take any money from Republicans..the big lie..say it over and over.. Alterman claims Nader is a “Lenist”..when a “liberal’ says that you wander where the “left” is really headed..
Run , Ralph, Run!
voternader.com
IP hash: aa3ffb37
Exit polls showed that 250,000 Democrats in Florida and roughly 10 million Democrats nationally voted for Bush in 2000. Gore himself has never blamed Nader and I would assume that Gore thinks he won anyway. And yes, in principle, we all earn our votes. And after seeing the film, I finally realized what a douche Eric Alterman really is.
IP hash: 4dd286ee
The fact is that if Nader hadn’t run, Bush would have lost. He campaigned in tightly contested states in order to swing the election to Bush. Ralph Nader is a spiteful, irresponsible bastard. He is largely to blame for the disastrous administration we have been suffering with for six long years. Go away, Ralph. Just go away.
IP hash: 4a568cb3
what an idiotic review. its hard to know where to begin critiquing the failures of your logic. 0 of 5.
IP hash: de5e2594
What a gang of head in the sand Nadar apologists we have on the comment thread. Stop mindlessly following the skinny Narcissist.
IP hash: 9b28d7bf
Was Ralph Nader responsible for Gore’s defeat in 2000, in a very small way he contributed. What mostly drives Ralph Nader these days is his irrelevance. The man has stood for very little in the last 30 or so years. The accomplishments cited were almost wholely prior to the 80’s. It’s this sense of true irrelevance that drives the man’s ego and put him in the Presidtential races. He had less chance than Don Quixote. Is he responsibe for a President Bush, no. That would be a simplistic answer to a complex question. To those of you who blame him, don’t, but take heart and be proud you didn’t vote for the criminal who currently holds the office. You had the wisdom and foresight to see through the sham that is George W. Bush.
IP hash: f5ef135e
I voted for Gore, everyday I am unbelievably ashamed, disappointed and depressed by Bush, I begged people not to vote for Nadar but ultimately you are wrong. More opinions, more sunshine and more candidates is what we need. If you want to stifle opinion through such aggressive and angry rhetoric your more suitable as a republican, as Ann Coulter. Your balancing our democracy against our policies but at the end of the day you must convince people, and not repress people, that your way is better. 10 million democrats voted for Bush. Forget about Gore not doing a good job, as a political commentator you also failed to convince quite a few democrats and independents to vote for Gore. Your current strategy does not resonate either.
IP hash: 48531d7c
Alterman’s obsession over Nader’s role in the election is almost as rabid as a Bushnik’s.
Anyone who thinks that Nader turned the tide on that election has his head crammed well up his ass. Gore did a beautiful job of losing on his own.
What chance did he have nationally, when he couldn’t even win his own state of Tennessee?
Alterman you’re out of touch with reality and most of the polls which held that Nader’s effect on the election was not worth mentioning. There were more Democrats who voted for idiotBush than votes for Nader.
I voted for Nader as the most qualified as well as the most intelligent of the lot and had he been allowed to debate, it would have been obvious to the entire nation.
I’ll vote for Nader again if he runs! I will NOT vote for either candidate of the major parties. They’re candidates of big money. Nader represents the people!
IP hash: c8f4a6d0
Glad to see that the flame of denial still burns brightly in the hearts of Ralph’s deluded acolytes. For my own part I think the bastard should have been strung up from a lamp post on 20 January 2001.
IP hash: 8d1b8b78
If Ralph Nader endorsed Al Gore for President then Bush isn’t elected. Argue with that, Naderites. And when you do, be sure to include all the reasons Ralph had for claiming there wasn’t any difference between Bush and Gore because he never really explained that one, did he?
In the film, the critics of Nader are given short shrift by design because Ralph Nader in a debate with Todd Gitlin and/or Eric Alterman would look like the damn fool he is today—an ill-informed meglaomaniac. So, yes, Ralph: thanks for seat belts, safe meat and skies of blue. But you’re the one that said Gore and Bush were two sides of the same coin and you were recklessly, foolishly and dangerously wrong. Shame on anyone who believed you and a thousand times shame on any fool who still believes you.
IP hash: e6db1d48
So - when did the email go out to all the Naderite nut cakes to pile on here?
Sadly, the only true believers more unable to face facts than the Republicans are the Naderites.
Nader did take Republican money. It’s documented (and the Republicans crowed over it). Get over it.
Nader did make the ludicrous statement that there wasn’t any importance difference between voting for Bush or for Gore. How can you - any of you Nader supporters - look at the last few years on phony war, no action on Global Warming, attack after attack on fundamental parts of our democracy, cronyism in federal office after federal office and then face yourselves in a mirror?
Nader’s actions were just enough to tip the balance. With a larger margin in Florida, the Republicans wouldn’t have been able to play the games they did.
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and attacking the people who try to make you face the truth. Face the uncomfortable fact that Ralph did some good things many years ago, but then got addicted to the publicity clippings and helped empower the people as antithetical to what he had stood for as possible, all for one more chance to stand in the limelight and believe he was St. Ralph.
IP hash: ba38907e
Ralph Nader hadn’t been relevant to anything since Ozzy was still in Black Sabbath. And, much like Ozzy, he’s become a sad, embarrassing and self-destructive shadow of what he once was. As is anyone who thinks that the Naderites voting for their man in Florida had no effect whatsoever on the 2000 election.
IP hash: b428f593
As a big fan of Nader’s and a third party organizer in the 70’s—I have to admit that he has contributed in a major way to our current disastrous government. Nader OFTEN promised, back in the day, never to run for President: being President, he said, would be like being in jail because of all the compromises, promises and sell-outs involved. I assumed, when Ralph finally agreed to run, it was to be a spoiler, pure and simple. And he was, pure and simple. Nader didn’t want to be President, he wanted to make the Political Science 101 point, over and over, that to be President requires compromise, and compromise can become a bad habit. But his credo that there was NO real difference between the major parties was transparent hogwash, aimed at unsophisticated voters.
The fact that Nader found it hard to live with the cruel results of his candidacy isn’t surprising, since in most ways he remains an honest man. But the fact that he ran again in 2004, effectively destroying the future viability of the Green Party, shows that he was permanently altered by his failures, and should be ignored, not debated. He belongs to a nostalgic past.