The importance of unreasonable men

Alternet wonders if Ralph Nader is an unreasonable man. A documentary about him, An Unreasonable Man, was released recently.

Despite being the most prominent progressive candidate in the last two presidential elections, Nader remains a hate figure in many left-of-center circles. As an anti-war American, I was grateful that Nader ran in 2004 so I could have a chance to vote for an actual anti-war candidate. Most anti-war Americans voted for a candidate who thought the Iraq Aggression was a fantastic idea in principle, just that it wasn't being managed quite so niftily.

The Alternet piece points to leftist critics of Nader who blame him for the Iraq Aggression, environmental destruction, the assault on the Constitution and who call him a "megalomaniac" and "intellectually dishonest."

It's one thing to disagree with Nader (though many of his most virulent critics agree with him on most things, except on his right to run for president). But his most vicious critics, who are usually on the left not the right, are so disconnected from reality in the way they attack him, that you have to wonder if they are mentally deranged.

Saying that Nader should have spent more years trying to help reform the Democratic Party is not a statement I'd agree with (the strategy having been tried and failed) but it's a fair statement that one can debate. But saying that Nader is to blame for the Iraq Aggression is beyond irrational.

In reading such fury and drivel, you almost forget that it's George W. Bush and his cronies who are destroying the country and the world, not a man who's spent four decades fighting AGAINST Bush and his right-wing corporatist forefathers and everything they stand for.

Similarly, Lorna Salzman wrote an interesting piece entitled 'Paleoliberals and the Satanic Nader.'

(It's available on her website. Just click on 'collected writings,' then on 'Green politics and foreign policy' and scroll down)

In her essay, Salzman assails 'Joe McCarthy-like outbursts' of establishment liberals (which she refers to as 'paleoliberals') against Nader.

What can they [the paleoliberals] possibly be thinking as they curse Pres. Bush for countenancing torture and illegal wiretapping and trampling on our civil liberties on the one hand, and with the other curse Nader for actually putting those liberties into practice? Or when they loudly scream for campaign reform but then, by inference, insist that the Democratic Party owns the votes of anyone who doesn't vote Republican?

She also points out that Nader was a refreshing antidote to the idea-free campaign of the Democrats and of John "a kinder, gentler militarism" Kerry.

Most distressing was the fact that few saw fit to even listen to Nader's reasons for running, much less his platform. Far easier it was to brand him as an apostate than be forced to defend the two-party system and the cynicism of the "lesser of two evils', or to defend a mediocre Democrat and his do-nothing party, or actually admit they agreed with Nader on all the issues. Who wants to subject himself to a civics lesson in the meaning of democracy? Perhaps in the end it was this resentment against the superior Nader arguments that galled his critics the most. If so, this was a subliminal way of honoring him; if you curse him enough, voters will ignore the issues he raises and your pronouncements will reign supreme. The cynics win and the country loses.

The Democrats spent four years rightly complaining about electoral mess that was Florida 2000. They wanted democracy, they sniffed. They wanted elections to be decided by the people, not lawyers and judges. The DNC machinations against Nader in 2004 when they tried to lawyer him off the ballot in many states revealed the hollowness of such whinings. Sure, many of these suits were without merit or frivolous but they bled Nader's campaign coffers dry and prevented him from running an effective campaign. What do you expect from the party of trial lawyers. They proved they were Democrats, not democrats.

And this garbage only further illustrated what Nader had said all along: that a serious, viable third party is necessary in this country. Nader has not yet succeeded in making this happen. One person alone can not do it. But it's a battle that needs to be fought.

Some people call him an egomaniac. But devoting 40 years and almost all your money entirely to public service is a strange way to manifest egomania. Being spied on by General Motors is a strange way to manifst egomania. Being called a traitor by your former friends because you actually acted on the principles those friends always admired you for is a strange way to manifest egomania.

Nader realizes that the poiltical system needs to be completely overhauled. If it were reformed in the way he and his supporters know is required, I would bet a year's paycheck that he would not run for president. He wouldn't have to. His objective is not power, but change.

Ralph Nader may be a prickly individual. He's not the kind of person you're going to go have a beer with at the bar. But he knows that those who believe the Democratic Party can return to its roots as a progressive movement free from corporate control may be well-intentioned, but are hopelessly naive. He is not a saint, but he's as close as we're going to get in today's politics. And he's gotten results. He wouldn't be so loathed by corporate America if he didn't.

Nader may be an unreasonable man. But every great advancement in American history was initiated by 'unreasonable' people. Unreasonable people like the Founding Fathers. Unreasonable people like Martin Luther King, Jr. Unreasonable people like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and Betty Friedan. Unreasonable people who were too naive and stubborn to believe critics when they were told that the right thing can't be done. In 40 years, Nader has made more of a positive contribution to this country than any reasonable person I can think of.