An Unreasonable Man

The film’s look at Nader post-2004 explores the vitriol the crusader engenders among his critics and the bittersweet respect he still garners from colleagues.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Since the 2000 presidential election, Ralph Nader has fallen so far from grace it is hard to believe that in the early 1970s polls showed him to be among the most admired men in America. In 1972, George McGovern asked Nader to be his running mate; the tireless consumer advocate had name recognition, an unmatched record of fighting corporate and bureaucratic power, and—if you believe the Tom Robbins novel Still Life With Woodpecker—sex appeal.

Three decades later, the documentary An Unreasonable Man probes Nader’s life in search of the logic that propelled his controversial presidential campaign in 2000 and unrepentant run in 2004. In the process, the film surveys the vitriol Nader engenders among his critics as well as the bittersweet respect he still garners from his colleagues. The responses from one interview seem to inform the next as the film intercuts between Nader’s attackers and apologists. Journalism professor (and Mother Jones contributing writer) Todd Gitlin tears into Nader for diminishing the difference between political parties. “To conflate the two as Tweedledee and Tweedledum was politically idiotic,” Gitlin says. “It is the responsibility of a serious person not to be a fool.” Responds Phil Donahue, “Liberals killed Nader for saying there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the parties, yet the Democrats spent the next four years proving that he was right.”

The film, codirected by a former Nader aide, tacks toward Nader’s view that defensive Democrats neither vote their conscience nor formulate appealing ideas. While it is hard not to cringe at clips of John Kerry impersonating George W. Bush’s tough-on-terror talk, the filmmakers are too lenient on Nader’s unwillingness to recognize 2004’s anyone-but-Bush imperative. Incapable of admitting even the possibility that he shares some of the responsibility for Bush’s first election, Nader shows no sign that he has learned that purity ofntention provides no immunity against disaster.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend