AN UNREASONABLE MAN - a documentary about Ralph Nader, was made in 2006. Two years after his second run for presidency, two years into W's 2nd term. For those who don't know who Mr. Nader is, he was best known (in the 70's) for helping make mandatory a host of things, including safety belts, which, in an epic battle against G.M., did not want to put into cars - the (minuscule) cost to do so, was deemed 'too expensive.'Mr. Nader took on many fights like this, and in his next incarnation, he ran for President of the U.S., first in 2000, and again in '04.It's the differences in these two campaigns - and, the time since that 2nd campaign ('06), and the repercussions we STILL feel today, and, for years to come - unless we wake up.Mr. Nader's first campaign was seen as almost a continuation of his consumer advocacy - he was a 3rd-party candidate, and his supporters viewed him as someone who'd help bring this nation back to it's senses - help release the elected officials' ties to PAC's, and corporations.At one point, the organization that funds the presidential debates (a private firm) refused to allow any candidates from ANY other parties, other than Democrat Al Gore, and Republican George W. Bush - to attend.This led to a situation, where Mr. Nader was invited to the debates (an off-stage viewing room, specifically), but, was met by police - who barred his entry.The election results were razor-thin, and many felt that W took the election (I'm NOT going to debate that, here), but, what happened to the US -and, the world, in general soon after, would strengthen what many perceived to be a weak, one-term presidency, and give them broad-sweeping powers that would cripple our basic rights;The attack of 11 Sept, '01.While this event is not strongly looked into, it caused ripples that would help W to a second term - and, many of the supporters of Nader's 1st run, not only wouldn't support him, they came out AGAINST him - with such vitriol (watch the difference in Michael Moore's strong convictions in praise of Nader for '00, and the clip right after, in '04, where he compares voting for Nader to the temporary high you get from using drugs!).Many who supported him, we're mocked -or worse - in '04,.As I said, this documentary was made in '06, so, we'd not yet suffered the financial meltdown of '08, and other events. Most of these once-for-now-against Nader supporters mock Nader's second run as 'foolish, egotistical,'As my father says; 'love everybody, trust nobody.' yes, it sounds cold, but, what this about- face of Mr. Nader shows how support can be fickle.At the end, several of the commentators mock Nader - his beliefs, etc. But, Mr. Nader says (I'm paraphrasing) his view has never changed. He doesn't care about his 'reputation' - only what is right. He said (again, this was made in '06) how our rights, our freedoms have been heavily eroded, and, he only wants to once again help work to make the US's founding principals, strong.It's 5 years later, when I saw this, and, the US, and, the world, is getting ever-more blind to these injustices. The finances of the world are in free-fall. A 'third World War' has been fought- without a bullet being fired. I'm referring to the MASSIVE financial clout and CONTROL by China - a country where a 'Mr. Nader' would he jailed - as they manufacture the world's technology, and much, much more.More and more people are in almost a narcotic-haze, of video games, and 'reality shows,' and materialism (Mr. Nader is NOT anti-capitalism, he's against bad, unfair business practices - that affect us ALL) - oblivious to the future. The 'Democratic' and 'Republican' parties grow ever more alike in their platforms, with the Republican party having been co- opted by extremist religious zealots, and the Democratic party practically catatonic, and, afraid to stand up for itself.What Mr. Nader rallied against - in the 70's, the '00 election, and again, the '04 election, is becoming more and more common-place.Mr. Nader states at the end, he's not interested in 'reputation' - he's interested in justice. If anything, I hope that viewing AN UNREASONABLE MAN will wake up Just one person - a person who can help continue to fight against injustices that affect us all.

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.

I remember when I was working on my listening skills. I used to listen to the speeches of David Duke to see if I could get beyond his hateful rhetoric to find some gem that I could agree with. When I started to watch this doc, I could easily agree with James Carville that outside of Jerry Falwell, Ralph Nader was the worst man in America, or something to that effect. I would put James Dobson and Karl Rove on that list.But, all that changed as I examined the facts. Nader did not cost Gore the election. Even David McReynolds got more votes that the 534 that separated Gore and Bush. In fact, every one of the half dozen or so third party candidates in Florida got more than 534 votes. Gore cost Gore the election, Just as Kerry cost Kerry the election in 2004. Bush should not have won either, and if the Democrats had stood up for the people as Nader did, then they would have won both.We owe so many of the things we take for granted: airbags, seat belts, product labeling warnings on food, clean air; I could go one and on, to Ralph Nader. He is one of the greatest Americans that have ever lived.No. I would never vote for him, but after watching this doc, I will stop vilifying him.

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?