Recently Watched: An Unreasonable Man
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.
–George Bernard Shaw
Did you know that Ralph Nader is behind such significant acts like the 
1970 Clean Air Act, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, among many others? In addition to these monumental movements, Nader also helped establish PIRG (Public Interest Research Groups) and Public Citizen, the most well known of his efforts which aims to engage in consumer advocacy, government accountability, clean democracy and ethical government, access to the courts, global trade, and regulatory and science policy.
An Unreasonable Man is quite possibly the best documentary I have ever seen. First and foremost, you hardly realize that you’re watching a documentary! The story is compelling and surprising — I had little knowledge of Nader’s extensive background in political activism. I had heard the stories, like many others, but never the real facts. The documentary, in addition to providing a basis by which one can better understand the man behind the movement, also effortlessly convinces you that he is, indeed, the most forward thinking “politician” out there.
When Nader was a child, his father would give his three children an assignment at the breakfast table — Each morning, he chose a topic that would later be the dinner discussion. The kids arrived at the dinner table prepared to literally debate politics, even at a young age. This obviously instilled a very serious sense of awareness and responsibility in Nader and his siblings.
Since the 1950s, Nader has maintained an incomparable presence in the political realm, beginning with his automobile-safety activism. In fact, he is responsible for the things we now take for granted: seat belts, air bags, built-in safety precautions in our cars. Upon 
the success of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Nader began to tackle issues across the board: the Federal Trade Commission (with the help of Nader’s Raiders), the National Air Pollution Control Administration, the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, in addition to many others.
I encourage any person who is interested in rights, of any kind (civil, environmental, etc.) to view this film. It will give you a look at who this man is, not who the media has made him out to be. It will, quite possibly, lead you to question the current state of our government, the limits imposed by a two-party system, and the truth behind the politicians we all support.
8 responses so far
And people wonder why I’m supporting Nader for 2012.
My blog post for the day was lamenting the two-party system and in particular, the schoolyard fight politics seems to have become.
YAY!! I told you you’d love this documentary!
One of my good friends campaigns for Nader and he really has accomplished quite a lot. It’s too bad so few people know his past.
I disagree somewhat.
Nadar never took it quite far enough. He runs knowing he can’t win and often at great cost to the nation. He has never really tried to change the politics of the country, only gain his own fame by doing something here and there, something which needed to be done for sure, but he left way too much unfinished while he went of to make money doing talk shows and writing memoirs only showing up every so often to reek havoc.
If you live around D.C. you might get a different view of Nadar who despite having done some good things has build an image on the idea that he is somehow chaste in all this, not motivated by power, fame or money - like those nasty politicians.
He is just another Washington lawyer and lifelong Beltway pol who has built a powerful organization, lobbies Congress, raises millions through direct mail and $1,000 a plate dinners, gets paid tens of thousands by interest groups for his speeches, manipulates the press and overworks a lot of earnest young staff.
He speaks truths but like any politician does not always follow through.
If he had spent his life working on changing the laws of politics, the election laws ,and speaking to that end, making people understand that in order for someone not of the major parties to get elected you have to start locally - by now it might be done or at least on it’s way. He hasn’t ,and so I have to bow out on the Nadar love despite his enticing rhetoric and a few good deeds he has done along the way.
He could have been, but he choose another way, the easier way in the end.
I couldn’t help myself here.
i have to agree with cooper. to put it simply, if it werent for nader, bush would have never gotten to the white house (in my opinion)
while i appreciate that the united states allows anyone to run in their own party as long as theyre 35, born here, etc (thank you gibbons), we do live in a 2 party system & the other parties, while trying to induce change actually hurt the system by taking away votes from the 2 parties.
Just to let you know, you’ve been tagged over on my blog.
This is the first time I’ve visited… and I’m loving the conversation that your blog sparks! I don’t know enough about Nader to participate, but I will check back in to see what else you have to say. =)
It’s tricky to respond to everyone’s comments. It’s a tricky subject in general. But I want to say that, in my opinion, the limits imposed by a two-party system are not necessarily for the best. While I understand the concept that “independent” parties can detract from the mainstream votes, thus leading our country into a period like the past eight years, I believe that true change can only come from opening the playing field. I wonder how many US citizens are satisfied with the system as-is. If Obama represents “change,” doesn’t someone like Nader potentially represent an even more radical notion of change? Perhaps this is the exact type of radicalism our government needs. If we continue to elect politicians who represent corporate interests (among other things) aren’t we just securing the future of scandals like Enron?
I’m not saying that I’ll be voting for Nader this election. I’m thrilled to be part of this historical time and I’m thrilled to have the opportunity to vote for a candidate like Obama who does, in so many ways, represent change. I just want to offer a different point of view, one expressed in a documentary such as this one, one that, whether you believe it or not, does have validity. We can’t blame one man for the W. years.