“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
Thus the title of the 2006 documentary, “An Unreasonable Man” which covered the life and works of Ralph Nader.
I voted for him in 2000. I was living in New York, a state that I knew Gore was going to carry easily and I wanted to register my disapproval for the way Gore had abandoned so many of his principles in an attempt to secure votes from the center right.
I don’t regret that vote because it was how I thought at the time. It was a major step in developing my political philosophy. I would never cast a vote so tactically again. I have also never rationally blamed Nader for Gore’s loss. I think he was absolutely right to enter the race. It wasn’t just that there was a great deal of centralizing of positions on the issues by both Republicans and Democrats. The attempt was total.
If I thought the way then that I do now, I would never have cast that vote for Nader. Even though I agreed with his reasons for entering the race I realize now that I have never in my life wanted Ralph Nader to actually be president.
Although I believe the Shaw quote to possess truth, I don’t believe it possesses the whole truth and it also seems to be a bit misleading. First of all, for purposes of progress, let’s change “man” to “person”. While all progress is dependent on the unreasonable person, the unreasonable person does not effect that change in a vacuum. While I believe that reasonable people do adapt to the world, one component of that world to which they adapt is unreasonable people.
While I support and am even passionate about the presence of unreasonable people in representative Democratic government, I know now that I do not want those people to head those governments.
In my lifetime, there have been two arguably unreasonable people who have held the office of president: Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. I liked Jimmy Carter and by his own admission he was not open to the ideas of others—even those of his own party when he was president. He has expressed regret for that. As a result his presidency was ineffectual. Thus far George W. Bush has expressed no real regret about anything except his daring the terrorists to “Bring it on.” I think most would agree that even though his presidency has been, for lack of a better word, effective, it has also been divisive, destructive and the closest to dictatorial any of us who have grown up in the United States have ever experienced.
No, it is the smart, reasonable person who can recognize the value and validity of the issues of unreasonable people from all sides who will, henceforth, get my vote. It is the reason why Barack Obama is the candidate I have been waiting for.
I waited until after I saw Mr. Nader’s appearance on “Meet The Press” before I began to write this. I would have preferred that he hadn’t declared his candidacy again, even though he has every right to do so. I will however question his reasons for running as well as his timing.
Right from the beginning of the show he mentioned percentages of Americans who cared about issues that had not been mentioned by the major candidates. I admit that had I been handed a questionnaire listing these issues I would have welcomed their inclusion as issues in this election. I believe if Mr. Nader had really wanted them included he would have begun his candidacy, at least in November. I’ve been watching these shows for the last year and I’m well aware that he could have easily been a guest back then. All of the major candidates had been running for months by then and their positions were clearly printed on their websites and were being outlined in their stump speeches. He would have had a better chance of getting these things talked about if he would have introduced them at the outset not after the major issues had been defined. That’s what John Edwards did. Admittedly he had more of a chance of being president than Nader back then but I think the argument still holds up.
Nader also claimed that one of the reasons he runs is to transform our election process into one that more closely resembles the multi-partied, parliamentary elections in Western Europe. I agree with that, but once again I say he should have started running earlier. I also ask if it is simply a case of adding another choice, why is it that most if not all of his communication prior to running is with the Democratic candidates and seems to come in the form of threats that if the candidates do not agree with his issues completely, he will run. His goal seems confused at best. Is it to provide another choice or to transform the Democratic Party? If it is to transform us into a multi-party nation, I have one suggestion; reach out to as far right a candidate as he can find. Even though Keyes comes to mind, someone like Tancredo seems better suited. Although both of those gentlemen probably aren’t interested in severing ties with the Republican party. I do think Nader could find someone parallel to himself who would be willing to pool resources and conduct a debate tour similar to what Barry Goldwater and John Kennedy had intended in 1964. I think such a venture could even be broached at this late date and it would lend credence to his parliamentary argument.
At one point during the interview with Russert this morning Mr. Nader really showed his hand when he said that the Democrats should win the election whether or not he is in the race. If they don’t they should disappear from the landscape. His claim is that the votes for him will be his votes. Votes that weren’t ever going to go to another candidate, but I have had at least two people tell me that they would be voting for Obama if Nader didn’t enter the race. In a general race that is already shaping up to be very ugly. Where racism, agism, patriotism, and cowardice are already being cited on the fringe and are moving closer to the forefront, this election could be more difficult than Mr. Nader claims to envision.
I will also add here that even though I appreciate the greatest majority of what Ralph Nader has done for the American People, I do not agree with all of the issues he supports even though he considers them self-evident. The first one that jumped out at me was Taft Hartley. I can say from personal experience that Taft Hartley, even though some parts do need to be revised, is vital to my self-interest. Along with that is Mr. Nader’s over-arching claim that all things union are good and all things corporate are bad.
I am a member of one union and have affiliation with two. I have experienced just as much tyranny from them as I have from monolithic corporations. I have no illusions that, if Taft Hartley were completely repealed, un-restricted unions would be just as despotic as un-restricted corporations.
I also am tired of this “them or us” attitude exampled by others including Nader. As if corporations should be painted as the complete and total enemy of the American People. I know for a fact that Exxon as well as other major companies have excellent programs where their retirees work for charities which even the most left of leftists would support. This is not to say that this offsets the evil done in and by corporations but it is something to be supported and appreciated in a way that might illustrate how all organizations, can be refocused to work for the common good. If there is one thing I have learned to be true from life experience, it is that if an entity is labeled as something and is forced into a corner having to prove that it is not, the possibility of it being polarized and fully embracing that quality is just as likely if not more so.
This was also the first time in the interview that I felt Nader misrepresented Senator Obama’s position. He claimed that the Senator’s record was “more pro-corporation than anything.” It has been my educated understanding that Barack Obama’s position is to attempt to work with all sides for the common good. MSNBC’s Howard Fineman stated on Tony Kornheiser’s radio show that Obama has an astounding ability to build coalitions between seemingly irreconcilable groups. It is not that he is pro-corporate. He has been willing to work with corporations to make communities better.
When I consider all the circumstances surrounding Ralph Nader’s present campaign announcement plus some I haven’t mentioned, it seems like that cliché; politics as usual-- At least politics as usual since 2000.
This is not to say that I wouldn’t agree with what a friend said in my comments section on blogspot that he wished Barack Obama would offer Ralph Nader a cabinet position to head off this announcement. But judging from Nader’s appearance, recent history and the statement the senator made on the subject, I’m afraid too much damage has been done to make that a possibility. Plus I’m pretty certain Ralph Nader would never serve in anyone’s cabinet.
Ralph Nader is a great American. In fact, he might have saved my life. Prior to my birth my father owned a corvair convertible and might have sold it in part to Nader’s book. Regardless of what he does from now until he leaves this earth his place in our history and society is secure. That being said, I have never nor would never want him to be president even though I voted that way once in protest. I maintain that all voters should vote their conscience. But in keeping with the intentions
of this blog I feel it necessary to make clear my opposition to him.
--George Bernard Shaw
Thus the title of the 2006 documentary, “An Unreasonable Man” which covered the life and works of Ralph Nader.
I voted for him in 2000. I was living in New York, a state that I knew Gore was going to carry easily and I wanted to register my disapproval for the way Gore had abandoned so many of his principles in an attempt to secure votes from the center right.
I don’t regret that vote because it was how I thought at the time. It was a major step in developing my political philosophy. I would never cast a vote so tactically again. I have also never rationally blamed Nader for Gore’s loss. I think he was absolutely right to enter the race. It wasn’t just that there was a great deal of centralizing of positions on the issues by both Republicans and Democrats. The attempt was total.
If I thought the way then that I do now, I would never have cast that vote for Nader. Even though I agreed with his reasons for entering the race I realize now that I have never in my life wanted Ralph Nader to actually be president.
Although I believe the Shaw quote to possess truth, I don’t believe it possesses the whole truth and it also seems to be a bit misleading. First of all, for purposes of progress, let’s change “man” to “person”. While all progress is dependent on the unreasonable person, the unreasonable person does not effect that change in a vacuum. While I believe that reasonable people do adapt to the world, one component of that world to which they adapt is unreasonable people.
While I support and am even passionate about the presence of unreasonable people in representative Democratic government, I know now that I do not want those people to head those governments.
In my lifetime, there have been two arguably unreasonable people who have held the office of president: Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush. I liked Jimmy Carter and by his own admission he was not open to the ideas of others—even those of his own party when he was president. He has expressed regret for that. As a result his presidency was ineffectual. Thus far George W. Bush has expressed no real regret about anything except his daring the terrorists to “Bring it on.” I think most would agree that even though his presidency has been, for lack of a better word, effective, it has also been divisive, destructive and the closest to dictatorial any of us who have grown up in the United States have ever experienced.
No, it is the smart, reasonable person who can recognize the value and validity of the issues of unreasonable people from all sides who will, henceforth, get my vote. It is the reason why Barack Obama is the candidate I have been waiting for.
I waited until after I saw Mr. Nader’s appearance on “Meet The Press” before I began to write this. I would have preferred that he hadn’t declared his candidacy again, even though he has every right to do so. I will however question his reasons for running as well as his timing.
Right from the beginning of the show he mentioned percentages of Americans who cared about issues that had not been mentioned by the major candidates. I admit that had I been handed a questionnaire listing these issues I would have welcomed their inclusion as issues in this election. I believe if Mr. Nader had really wanted them included he would have begun his candidacy, at least in November. I’ve been watching these shows for the last year and I’m well aware that he could have easily been a guest back then. All of the major candidates had been running for months by then and their positions were clearly printed on their websites and were being outlined in their stump speeches. He would have had a better chance of getting these things talked about if he would have introduced them at the outset not after the major issues had been defined. That’s what John Edwards did. Admittedly he had more of a chance of being president than Nader back then but I think the argument still holds up.
Nader also claimed that one of the reasons he runs is to transform our election process into one that more closely resembles the multi-partied, parliamentary elections in Western Europe. I agree with that, but once again I say he should have started running earlier. I also ask if it is simply a case of adding another choice, why is it that most if not all of his communication prior to running is with the Democratic candidates and seems to come in the form of threats that if the candidates do not agree with his issues completely, he will run. His goal seems confused at best. Is it to provide another choice or to transform the Democratic Party? If it is to transform us into a multi-party nation, I have one suggestion; reach out to as far right a candidate as he can find. Even though Keyes comes to mind, someone like Tancredo seems better suited. Although both of those gentlemen probably aren’t interested in severing ties with the Republican party. I do think Nader could find someone parallel to himself who would be willing to pool resources and conduct a debate tour similar to what Barry Goldwater and John Kennedy had intended in 1964. I think such a venture could even be broached at this late date and it would lend credence to his parliamentary argument.
At one point during the interview with Russert this morning Mr. Nader really showed his hand when he said that the Democrats should win the election whether or not he is in the race. If they don’t they should disappear from the landscape. His claim is that the votes for him will be his votes. Votes that weren’t ever going to go to another candidate, but I have had at least two people tell me that they would be voting for Obama if Nader didn’t enter the race. In a general race that is already shaping up to be very ugly. Where racism, agism, patriotism, and cowardice are already being cited on the fringe and are moving closer to the forefront, this election could be more difficult than Mr. Nader claims to envision.
I will also add here that even though I appreciate the greatest majority of what Ralph Nader has done for the American People, I do not agree with all of the issues he supports even though he considers them self-evident. The first one that jumped out at me was Taft Hartley. I can say from personal experience that Taft Hartley, even though some parts do need to be revised, is vital to my self-interest. Along with that is Mr. Nader’s over-arching claim that all things union are good and all things corporate are bad.
I am a member of one union and have affiliation with two. I have experienced just as much tyranny from them as I have from monolithic corporations. I have no illusions that, if Taft Hartley were completely repealed, un-restricted unions would be just as despotic as un-restricted corporations.
I also am tired of this “them or us” attitude exampled by others including Nader. As if corporations should be painted as the complete and total enemy of the American People. I know for a fact that Exxon as well as other major companies have excellent programs where their retirees work for charities which even the most left of leftists would support. This is not to say that this offsets the evil done in and by corporations but it is something to be supported and appreciated in a way that might illustrate how all organizations, can be refocused to work for the common good. If there is one thing I have learned to be true from life experience, it is that if an entity is labeled as something and is forced into a corner having to prove that it is not, the possibility of it being polarized and fully embracing that quality is just as likely if not more so.
This was also the first time in the interview that I felt Nader misrepresented Senator Obama’s position. He claimed that the Senator’s record was “more pro-corporation than anything.” It has been my educated understanding that Barack Obama’s position is to attempt to work with all sides for the common good. MSNBC’s Howard Fineman stated on Tony Kornheiser’s radio show that Obama has an astounding ability to build coalitions between seemingly irreconcilable groups. It is not that he is pro-corporate. He has been willing to work with corporations to make communities better.
When I consider all the circumstances surrounding Ralph Nader’s present campaign announcement plus some I haven’t mentioned, it seems like that cliché; politics as usual-- At least politics as usual since 2000.
This is not to say that I wouldn’t agree with what a friend said in my comments section on blogspot that he wished Barack Obama would offer Ralph Nader a cabinet position to head off this announcement. But judging from Nader’s appearance, recent history and the statement the senator made on the subject, I’m afraid too much damage has been done to make that a possibility. Plus I’m pretty certain Ralph Nader would never serve in anyone’s cabinet.
Ralph Nader is a great American. In fact, he might have saved my life. Prior to my birth my father owned a corvair convertible and might have sold it in part to Nader’s book. Regardless of what he does from now until he leaves this earth his place in our history and society is secure. That being said, I have never nor would never want him to be president even though I voted that way once in protest. I maintain that all voters should vote their conscience. But in keeping with the intentions
of this blog I feel it necessary to make clear my opposition to him.J.A.L.
(Since publication of this, sources inform me that Nader had nothing to do with my father's decision to sell the Corvair. It was rather my mother's unease with driving it.
I owe Nader nothing.
Not only that, but it seems that the purchase of the Corvair occurred after my birth. This means that, at least my early years were spent being raised by death-defying, moderate Republican Hellions)
22 comments:
Thanks for the long, thoughtful musings about Nader's candidacy.
I agree with you that being open to the ideas of others is a good quality for a leader to have and it appears that Obama has that quality.
The most important thing for me is to have a leader who advances the agenda I care about. In order to meet that description, such a leader must share my agenda (in large part) and be able to persuade others of its value. Nader comes closer to sharing my agenda than Obama does.
I expect to vote for Nader mainly because I agree with the positions he advocates (including the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act), but also because I think he is a persuasive man (I can’t say the same of Dennis Kucinich).
If I become convinced in late October that votes for Nader might jeopardize Obama’s chances to win Illinois’s electoral college delegates (fat chance of that), I will consider giving Obama an anti-McCain vote.
I support Nader’s pro-union rhetoric and think we are a veeeeeeeeery long way from living in a society controlled by despotic unions, and would be even if Taft-Hartley were repealed.
I am not at all tired of Nader’s (and Edwards’s) attacks on big business, and neither am I troubled that they are too hard on the Exxons of the world. I don’t think the Exxons of the world are anywhere near to being “forced into a corner” that requires them to live up to the negative labels that have been put on them. I’ve heard Edwards clarify that he is not against all corporations. I’m sure Nader would say the same thing. But the time for nuance and caveat comes after you start getting heard.
I look forward to getting more details from Nader on what he considers to be Obama’s “pro-corporation” record.
One big reason Nader did not start his campaign earlier is that he was endorsing Edwards (an example of positive communication between him and the Democratic party). Nader went public with the endorsement at the end of December.
When the field is narrowed to two candidates, Nader can raise the issues he and Edwards have advocated in ways that other Democrats cannot, since their political careers are wedded to the party.
I like your idea of Nader on a debate tour. It seems to me that his natural counterpart would be Ron Paul. Huckabee might be good, too. Unfortunately, anyone who is wedded to the two-party system (even Ron Paul) will be committing political hari-kiri if they participate in such a tour (which is part of the trouble with the two-party system).
I agree with you that Nader would not accept a cabinet position. I have recently been reminded, however, that when Kerry asked Nader for his support in 2004, Nader gave him a list of 21 issues he cared deeply about and asked Kerry to make three of them prominent in his campaign rhetoric in exchange for Nader’s support. Kerry blew him off. I wonder if Nader might call of the dogs if Obama made the deal that Kerry would not.
When I use the Shaw quote to refer to Ralph Nader as an “unreasonable” man, it is not a judgment of his logical capacities or his intelligence but his refusal to quit fighting for the causes he believes in even though all reasonable evidence suggests that his cause is to a large degree hopeless.
In what ways would you say Bush’s presidency has been “effective”?
Effective. Simplest most un-nuanced explanation: I could go point by point but it seems the main goal was to strengthen the executive branch to the point of once again referring to it as the imperial presidency. I think he did much to pull that off. During his first six years the legislative and Judicial were nothing more than a rubber stamp for his agenda. I, in no way meant to imply that "effective" was a positive comment. I thought my other adjectives would make that clear.
The three issues ultimatum proves my point in my mind. I had forgotten about it. If Obama just prior to March 4 had adopted these issues, it would look like capitulation. Had these issues been put forth to all candidates earlier, less of a chance it would have looked like extortion.
The fact that he communicated with and supported Edwards also falls in line with my point. Communication, either positive or negative is still communication and evidence of an attempt to transform rather than offer another choice.
In concert with that, I ask you to remember the situation in 2000. I was hearing the discussion everywhere. There was almost no difference between the candidates when it came to their professed stands on the issues. It was mind-numbing to everyone, including me. There was a real need for another choice.
Can anyone really say there are not clear divisions on issues between McCain and either of the remaining Democratic candidates?
I so support the idea of a multi-party system but if Nader supported Edwards in Autumn and supports himself in Winter it seems his support for a multi-party system is seasonal.
I can only speak from personal experience when it comes to unions. I have experienced real tyranny through broken promises, outright lies, and even attempted robbery at the hands of unions that do not hold true to their missions. I'd be happy to tell you about at least four examples in person. I shudder to think what life would be like if every union was as unfettered as the corporations have been over the past decades.
You are absolutely right about the corporations. I just don't like approaching reformation with them from the viewpoint of you are all evil we are all good from the outset.
Let me just add, finally, that if you want Nader to be president, vote for him.
I guess if I have a misgiving about that concession it is this; it seems that there has been a disconnect over the last two elections between the left and the right as to what the general election is. The right seems to view it as the Super Bowl, one on one. Even if their favorite team isn't in it, they support the team that beat theirs. The left seems to view it as the U.S. Open golf tournament.
I would prefer it was more the latter thus my suggestion of a debate tour between third and fourth party candidates.
Otherwise I can't see a solution to this disagreement that isn't detrimental to the left.
I invite greater imaginations than mine to hold forth.
Effective. I knew you didn't mean it as a compliment, but I wasn't sure how you meant it. I agree with you that Bush has effectively demonstrated that the executive branch can do a lot of stuff without being restrained by the other two branches.
When I think of Bush's effectiveness, however, I think of the disastrously mismanaged invasion of Iraq.
Post a Comment