What's your take on Nader?: Panorama: Rocky Mountain PBS: a2

Denver

48°

Blogs Health Care Tech Talk Green Living National Parks Super School News The 1930s

Facing the Mortgage Crisis
Colorado in the 1930s - an online exhibit
National Parks
Colorado in the 1930s
Video interview with CCC alumnus Al Coven
Ken Burns on San Antonio Missions
Paper on a new plane
The Colorado Historical Society's dioramas
Native American Heritage Month

Masterpiece Contemporary: Collision (Part 2 of 2)
Sunday at 9pm

Mystery of Chaco Canyon
Wednesday at 8pm

Movie: Harry and Tonto (1974)
Saturday at 8pm

True Whispers: The Story of the Navajo Code Talker
Tuesday at 8pm

Nova: Why Do We Dream?
Tuesday at 7pm

What's your take on Nader?

posted Tuesday, Nov. 27, 2007 10:37am

See more on: Blogs, Community Cinema, Democracy, Documentaries, Independent Lens, Politics, Screenings, Vote 2008

One of my friends refuses to attend our screening of the Ralph Nader profile "An Unreasonable Man" this week (Wednesday, 11/28, 7 p.m. – free), because she said she'll just get too angry. She's a Democrat and can't forgive Nader for his so-called spoiler role in the 2000 election.

A man in his 70s at our "Miss Navajo" screening last month remarked to me when he saw the flyer for the Nader film, "I always thought Ralph Nader was un-American. After all, Volkswagens had engines in the back, too."

There's no denying it – Nader is controversial.

Last night, I previewed "An Unreasonable Man" (preview here) and pressed pause a dozen times to interject a comment to my viewing partner.

While I won't give a review or offer (much) opinion, I'll say that it's hard not to be struck by Ralph Nader's single-mindedness and perseverance. Nader waged war on injustice and let nothing – friendships, personal life, reputation, err...political strategy – get in the way.

Of course, that's not really the point. The documentary does cover Nader's mind-boggling consumer advocacy career, but the story careens into his notorious run for president.

Through discussions with everyone from Pat Buchannan to an army of Nader's Raiders, "An Unreasonable Man" raises questions about our two-party system and what in the world you can do when you want to vote for change but can't afford to spoil.

Which brings me to my question: Do you think Nader is a hero or a villian?

Comment below, and while you're at it, come to Starz FilmCenter in Denver tomorrow night for our screening and join in the discussion. We've got a great panel lined up to help get a conversation going:

Rich McClintock, former executive director of the Colorado Public Interest Research Group (CoPirg) who has worked with Nader but signed a petition urging him not to run for president
Eliza Hamrick, former Colorado Teacher of the Year (2002) and longtime Overland High School social studies teacher involved in linking U.S. high school students with students in a developing democracy
Mike Cummings, professor and founder of the CU Denver political science department and Green Party member.

I read a review of "An Unreasonable Man" that says it causes you to change your mind about Nader more than once during the viewing.

Let us know what you think for now.

-Allison, Rocky Mountain PBS

P.S. If you don't live in Denver or can't make it to the screening, see "An Unreasonable Man" on "Independent Lens" December 18 at 10 p.m.

Tune In

Independent Lens
"An Unreasonable Man"

Join the Community Cinema e-mail list for updates and reminders of free screenings.

Community Cinema is sponsored by

"democracy" on flickr

What's your point of view?

Terrence Whelan
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 › 4:24pm
I'm a registered "Independent" voter and I would love to find a thrid party candidate to vote for. But I have to say I saw Mr. Nader's run for the White House in 2000 as a purely egotisical man seeking yet more public attention. Before that I had a generally favorable impression of him. But now I think he has to take some of the credit for the neo-con (neo-fascist) government we have that is busy chewing up the Constitution while they deny our legal and civil rights. All the time illegally spying on us. The Greedy Banks and multi-national corporations who have taken control of our government through both parties need a counter balance in a real third party movement that has an electable candidate that is for saving the American Middle Class, people like Nader create a diversion for voters who hate the other two parties, but give us nothing to really change the system. If this continues they will certainly kill the goose that laid the Golden Egg, and then blame everyone else. It is sad that Nader can't see that he is unelectable and step asside for a better candidate.

Carl Pacileo
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 › 4:27pm
I agree 100% with your friend. Ralph Nader is an egomaniac who puts himself before his country. He is a shameful man. All one has to do is look at the shape this country is in. Ralph Nader is as much a villian as these filthy republicans, and he can go to HELL!

Anne Pennington
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 › 4:42pm
Selfishness, ego? Whatever, why didn't Nader throw his votes to the Democrats and act like a politician, asking for the favor of being appointed to some post, such as a new cabinet category--environmental something or other.
I would like to see a 3-party system but we need a time when BOTH parties are in a quandary, or else, maybe the Republicans will act wisely and form a third party now,thus insuring both legislative and executive branches for the Democrats. ( Not a bad idea.)

James Heath
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 › 5:34pm
I will never look at Ralph Nader again without thinking he causes the Iraq war. It still irks me when think of Nader and his followers saying " it doesn't matter if you vote for Bush or Gore...they both the same." I want to say to all of them NOW don't you wish you voted for Gore?

I would like to see a thrid party. However, when it was absolutely obvious that he had no chance to win (or even to influence the issues) an ethical man would have throw his support to candidate closest to his views. Shame!

James Barker
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 › 10:10pm
I wonder if Allison's friend has ever forgiven Ross Perot "for his so-called spoiler role"? Somehow I think she believes it was a noble sacrifice for the good of the country. As for Mr. Nader, I don't give much thought to him one way or another. No third party candidate has ever seriously thought they stood a chance of being elected. The purpose of a third party candidate is to inject issues into the debate which the other two partys refuse to consider. As for Mr. Whelan's equating neo-conservatism with neo-fascism, fascism is a leftist, socialist political system

Nathaniel
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 › 10:31pm
I think Ralph Nader is a great human being and a the kind of politician this country needs. The Democrats need to quit their whining and moaning. It's time we get rid of the Republicrat duopoly that's ruining this country.

Allen Berggren
Wednesday, November 28, 2007 › 3:37am
As one who found more than a few of Naders positions over the years to be "unreasonable," I would be quite interested in seeing this film. He did raise awareness on some important issues. Looking back now, it's hard for me to believe that when I was a kid, seatbelts in cars were a rarity. As for his "spoiler" role in the 2000 election, if he really was responsible for putting a Republican back in the White House, perhaps after all these years I can forgive him for killing the Corvair.

Hans Verboom
Wednesday, November 28, 2007 › 6:50am
Nader is responsible for helping a "war president" into office. During the 2000 campaign he would not even acknowledge that Al Gore would be better for environmental strategies. He considered Gore and Bush equally bad on all issues. How can we ever forgive him for not endorsing Al Gore when it became clear that he was helping Bush? Imagine how much better we would be of now.

Linda Medley
Wednesday, November 28, 2007 › 10:15am
We have two main parties. Nader hurt Gore's results, and Bush team was happy to have that happen. Gore was robbed of his win by the Bush team (including his Gov Brother's associates) in Florida! I have changed from an Independent to a Democrat since Independents cannot vote in any Primary! Politics stink!

Sharon Willhelm
Wednesday, November 28, 2007 › 11:56am
Like Linda, I too finally registered as a Democrat in 2000 after being a lifelong independent - simply because I felt that voting in the primary might actually make a difference in the outcome of the election. HA - pity the naiive idealist! Yes, Nader spoiled Gore's chances and that made all the difference, not only in our country, but in the whole world. I don't know if I can fault him for trying, but I certainly would if he tried it again! I would love to see a third party candidate have a REAL shot at the presidency, and I'd also love to see this screening on Nader. I will watch the TV version on the 18th to become better informed; in the meantime, I hope and pray for a day when America will once again have a government OF (ALL) THE PEOPLE, BY (ALL) THE PEOPLE and FOR (ALL) THE PEOPLE - not just for the greedy rich.

Howard
Monday, December 24, 2007 › 10:15am
I am pained every time I hear about people who share progressive values being divided by debate over the Nader "spoiler" issue. Both sides are missing the point. The real issue is that our election system even allows for "spoilers". This is something unnecessary that can be and is being fixed by implementing election reforms like Instant Runoff Voting throughout the country.

This was not touched on in An Unreasonable Man which greatly upset me. I wrote about this in my post Instant Runoff Voting Excluded: An Unreasonable Omission from An Unreasonable Man. I hope you'll share with your friend this post and that others will read it so that we can band together and use that energy, frustration and anger toward constructive change. I look forward to hearing from anyone who is ready to put that energy toward reform so that never again do we have "spoiled" elections or have to demonize great people simply for wanting to run for office in a democracy.