This documentary about Ralph Nader takes its title from a line by George Bernard Shaw: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the conditions that surround him… The unreasonable man adapts surrounding conditions to himself… All progress depends on the unreasonable man.” That gives a flavor of the central dilemma facing any assessment of Nader.
The documentary is straightforward enough: archival footage and interviews. Nader himself is interviewed several times, and prominence goes to the so-called “Nader’s Raiders†who worked with him in the early days. The first hour charts Nader’s career as a consumer advocate from the early conflict with GM and the formation of his “Raiders†through the highpoint of the Carter years when Nader was largely responsible for some of the most important consumer protection legislation of the late 20th century, to the exasperation of the Reagan, Bush I and Clinton years, by which time American business had learned how to fight and win the public relations battles and Nader watches his legacy slowly dismantled. The second hour covers the period since 2000 and Nader’s two presidential bids.
The documentary is sympathetic to Nader, but gives plenty of space to his critics (including an incredibly angry Eric Alterman), and it is interesting to see that most of the early “Raiders†opposed his presidential bid, some quite bitterly. The argument is partly one of personality – Nader is absolutely certain of himself and willing to sacrifice almost anything when he believes that principle is at stake – and partly one of context – that Nader has watched the Democrats steadily move to the right since 1978 and felt that consumer protection could no longer work without a different kind of politics. You see Michael Moore campaign for him in 2000 and then turn on him in 2004, and there is some astonishing footage of Nader being turned away from a presidential debate, despite having a valid ticket to be in the audience. It also sorts through the evidence for whether Nader ran as a spoiler or not.
I spoke in favor of Nader in various college and community debates in 2000, though I eventually voted for Gore, and subsequently regretted my actions (the speaking, not the voting). But this documentary reminded me of why it seemed like a good idea at the time, and why – despite everything that has since transpired – Nader deserves better than the vitriol that has been heaped upon him. He comes off as a tragic figure rather than the cartoonish figure of fun that we are used to seeing. The tragedy is not just that his enormous legacy as a consumer advocate (at one point the list of legislation that we have thanks to Nader scrolls down the screen) is ruined, but that any kind of third party challenge is delegitimized for the foreseeable future.
This notion of Nader as a “spoiler” always gets to me…Democrats move to the right and essentially protect corporate interests (one basic example—the recent bankruptcy laws), then when they are challenged by someone from the left, they adopt smear tactics and start whining about “spoiling” as though they have some god-given right to represent the opposition, though they’ve mostly given up that role long ago (another recent example–their failure to do anything meaningful to put the brakes on Bush). If a third party has been delegitimized, it is thanks to the democrats themselves, not to Nader. My complaint with him is not that he ran for office but that he didn’t mount a more serious campaign.
I agree with you the whole way, Michael (and Chris), but would place particular emphasis on M’s last phrase: Nader didn’t seem to really be campaigning at all, in the sense of recognizing a large portion of the audience needed persuading. I really want to see this doc, because I’ve been consistently frustrated by how some of the strongest voices in what’s loosely called “the Left” in America are so seriously disinterested in, or incompetent at, the art of convincing, of connecting, of rhetoric. I wasn’t behind him in 2000, even, because I agreed with so many of his positions but never thought seriously he was seeking election as much as preaching from the bully pulpit.
I’m also curious if a third party in America could ever emerge from our political left, as I assume any such viable move will be not Green (at least not on the national front) as much as populist in the Jesse Ventura, Ross Perot sense. Because I have this sense–which may be wholly wrong–I’m all for spoilers, of a sort, but I want them *in* the party–MoveOn and its ilk have also been called spoilers, because they push certain “agenda” which mainstreamers say cannot win. That doesn’t bother me–they force the party to attend to, rather than bank on, support from what Wellstone called the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.
Here endeth the rant. I’ll watch the movie before blathering further.
re: democrats being “seriously disinterested in, or incompetent at, the art of convincing, of connecting, of rhetoric.” interesting. i think they try, actually, but there doesn’t seem to be an easy hook for the left the way there is one for the right. why is that? in my darkest moment, i think the problem is just lack of a charismatic leader. but then i think: the right? where’s the right’s charismatic leader?
does right-wing intolerance not need a charismatic leader?
I think the documentary would argue that Nader did campaign, but he was denied any media coverage (beyond the ritual denunciations), and you just cannot campaign in America today without either money for TV ads or media attention. It is the oxygen of politics. Or, without a real social movement to do the necessary grass roots organizing, like the labor movement could once deliver. The documentary highlights these massive public events that Nader was able to organize, but which were buried on p. 16 of the NYT.
And my response to Gio is that the problem for the Left has been belief in a charismatic leader, someone to ride in on a white horse and save us while we watch on TV (Bill Clinton? Barack Obama?), rather than the difficult, time-consuming work of building a social movement. The success of the Right rests not on a charismatic leader but, in large part, upon a grassroots social movement: evangelical christians.
Hm. Great points about social movement, and my own tendencies to emphasize the (ostensible) pivot of a central leader are misguided. But two quick ideas/questions back:
1) All that said, Nader’s alliance with the Green party–which had/has the makings for serious, substantive social organization–seemed a matter of convenience for him. I get this from Greens here in MN, who felt particularly by 2004 that Nader didn’t really want to engage with the movement or a serious third party but wanted simply to be hoisted up to center stage, which could be more easily accomplished by links to an existing social movement. I.e., Nader himself acted like HE mattered as much as/more than the movement. Or, rather, like all serious believers, his commitment to his absolute certainty in his positions and principles should trump all other action. You’re right that he got marginalized by the mainstream press, but didn’t he also fail to engage in the kind of leadership that motivates and helps fuel many strong public movements?
2) Which brings me to leaders. I don’t think I would want a leader who rides in and figures things out, but I do crave a leader who can speak to, for, and about those principles I hold dear. To hear Mario Cuomo speak about liberal democracy in the ‘eighties was to hear not necessarily some new principles nor to see some great new charismatic leader (Cuomo pretty obviously ducked on that option) but to hear someone masterfully and eloquently give voice to principles. Without a real social organization behind it, it’s merely talk. But…
I think I was emphasizing the utility of party because it’s an existing social organization/organizer, with the possibility that a strong voice/leader could shift or channel the organization effectively. And you could see it in someone like the current GWB in the White House; evangelicals wouldn’t get organize or vote as a kind of movement without a sense that the ‘leader’ was a true believer and someone to follow. (Witness the current fragmentation of that “base.”) And the ideal is a leader who seems a true believer to the movement while also speaking to others, bringing others into that tent–a Bush or a Reagan who seem to be both evangelical and more broadly persuasive. (Note: my use of “ideal” is tinged with great sadness, and I go back to my point earlier: where is the speaker from a more Left-oriented social movement who could mobilize in these ways? That seems to me a loss.)
Chris–I see your point about lack of coverage regarding Nader’s campaign.We should also take into consideration the Democratic Party’s dirty tactics–for example, the accusation of massive fraud by Nader in obtaining the necessary signatures for being put on the ballot. Perhaps I am just too disaffected but I am skeptical about both the possibilities of leadership and the possibilities of moving the Democratic Party from “within.” I believe there needs to be a widespread and transformative shift in the way Americans think about politics–as something far more pervasive and deep-seated than electoral politics. I think the point about evangelical Christians is a good one–they have created a culture wherein politics is integrated, with influence on but also beyond electoral politics. They have a ready-made communication network of churches and organizations—something the secular left completely lacks. The right-wing has the mobilizing node of talk radio, again something the left completely lacks despite all the claptrap about the “liberal” media. Organization around specific issues–say, patient advocacy groups against medical insurance companies, for example–are a good start. But I think the effort will have to be directed toward undermining the forces that make money and charismatic leaders necessary. I think, too, that much of the Left will have to move away from the dead end of identity politics which too much puts forward the idea that everyone needs equal access to the status quo, rather than toward changing the status quo.
I haven’t really anything to add to the initial remarks by Chris and the subsequent discussion–but I’d echo Chris’ endorsement of the film. Good film, about a crucial political figure….
…I still wonder about the notion of the strong leader. I think Nader’s role in the 2000 election–both how he positioned himself and how we was positioned/read by many–was as a particular, singular kind of leader. A kind of secular saint, as many critics point out in the doc, but this read also resonates through his whole career: his absolute unflagging single-minded devotion to principles and causes. Once he had that initial success–which also led to personal attacks, which failed and redounded to polish his particular, personal image–he was always “Ralph Nader.” Perhaps he is in some ways an “anti-politician,” unconcerned with charisma and persuasion–because so concerned about the issues, but…
…but I still think his success in 2000 was based on *exactly* the kind of role–that desire for the one true leader who will speak the truth and guide us–that candidates in electoral politics play. In other words, and I think the doc illustrates this, Nader didn’t really run outside of traditional campaigns, at least not in any structural way: he wasn’t the voice of a movement, nor representative of a broad coalition. He ran because he was “Ralph Nader,” and that was a brand many in various coalitions and across the “Left” found intriguing.
I’m NOT complaining necessarily–I argued in the discussion above that I am willing to accept that kind of structure, and myself look for a speaker/leader who embodies principles etc. But I am skeptical, perhaps even more so after the doc, that Nader despite his difference on many substantive issues really represented a difference in the way politics is played at the national level. I’m curious if his run really delegitimizes a third-party candidacy when he was less a product of a third party than a product distributed through a third party; in short, if the Greens or some other real movement has a leader bubble up from the ranks at some local or state level, then they would be a viable third party. Look at how 2000 is demonized: Nader’s the spoiler, not the party. His party affiliation allowed him some on-the-ground viability, particularly in states where the Greens have a base, but he was most successful because he wasn’t reliant upon that base but had brand recognition. I’m rambling–I guess I’m arguing he didn’t so much represent a third party as much as a third candidate.
Which is beside the point for the documentary–it’s pretty good.