The Unreasonable Man shares his thoughts
An interview with Ralph Nader
By Matt Funiciello
Green Party of New York State

GREEN PAGES: What did you think of An Unreasonable Man (the new Nader documentary)?

RALPH NADER: I think its a very motivating film for people around the country of various ages who sometimes get discouraged about not being able to make a difference and also those who have never heard of their ability to make a difference. ... I hope that a lot of kids and school children see it. It's not an advertisement. It has critical voices against what my associates and I have done so it keeps your interest.

GP: The new film deals with the belief among mainstream Democrats that you and third parties like the Green Party are stealing voters from them. What would you say to Greens conflicted over their own perceived role as "spoilers?"

RN: Well, anyone who adheres to the "Spoiler" philosophy should not support a third party or lead a third party. The point of a third party is to start a "new politics." We're going to move the agenda in the direction of the best interests of the people and their progeny and the environment and the world. If we start small ... that's the way great movements have always started. Very few movements suddenly, spontaneously, immediately come into fruition. Just look at our history. The women's right to vote movement, the anti-slavery movement, the worker decency movement, the farmer populist progressive movement, those took years and years to develop. If the people who decided to vote for those small parties in the 19th century instead had the same attitude that some liberals have today (of "spoilers") they wouldn't have voted for the anti-slavery, or the woman's suffrage party or the labor party or the people's party. If we look back now ... aren't we glad that they did? Aren't we glad that they spurred on the two major parties and one or both of them came on board with some of these major issues and eventually … it's part of American life - a woman's right to vote, the end of slavery. There's no politician in the two parties who would doubt those changes and oppose them now.

GP: If you decide to run again in 2008, is there any reason to believe that the Democrats may stop making you, or the Greens, their enemy and embrace a different, perhaps more fruitful strategy?

RN: Um, No. It's amazing how little they learn from history! They didn't pick up the issues we were spreading all over the country in 2000 which would have easily won for Gore, by a bigger margin than he actually did win the election (which, I believe, he did). In 2004, Kerry started out right. He basically said, "I'm going to take away Nader's votes by taking away his issues," which is exactly what I wanted him to do. Unfortunately, he then fell into the hands of his political consultants and a number of people who thought they could make a short term profit by starting 527s and offering their services by going after our ballot access and our petitioners. So, I think that its just part of this two-party "elected dictatorship" virus. They just cannot stand to have competition to a level where they don't want to respond to the competition, they want to remove it from the arena by removing us from one state ballot after another; Ohio, Pennsyl­vania, Massachusetts and many other states. 

GP: With Nancy Pelosi taking impeachment off the table on day one, what are your thoughts about this? 

RN: Well, the only argument on her behalf is that if Bush and Cheney were impeached (and it would be a twofer if it ever happened), she would become the president, so she's in an awkward situation. But what she did was she put the kibosh on her chairmen, like Chairman John Conyers of the Judiciary Commit­tee. She literally demanded that he write an op-ed, which he did last year in the Washington Post saying, "impeachment is off the table but I'd like to have a bi-partisan committee of inquiry." I'm sure the Republicans are lining up in front of his door trying to sign up for that preliminary tiptoe forward. She didn't have to do that. It's interesting how a constitutional system decays. … George Bush does everything from: a criminally-initiated outlaw war based on lies and deception, wire-tapping without court approval, torture as a system of interrogation, deprivation of civil liberties, and locking people up without charges and without lawyers indefinitely … I mean you can just go on and on about impeachable offenses. The Democrats, who, with various degrees of intensity before '06, criticized Bush for all this … then, they become in control of Congress and they take it off the table which means they also take off any kind of likely censure movement. What does that do? It basically institutionalizes a lower and lower bar for presidents to engage in outrageous behavior with impunity. I mean they don't look at how these "passes" they give Bush are going to affect the future of politics in America. In that sense, the Democrats showed their true hand, didn't they? 

MF: What would be your last words to Greens reading this all across the country?

RN: If you're a "least worster", don't participate in a third party because then you're just a Trojan horse.

----------

Back to Winter 2007