Steve here. Thank you all for supporting our movie and helping to get the word out. Just got a call from Joe Tom Easley. He’s looking forward to making the DC opening this coming weekend. He’s anxious to reconnect with some of his fellow former Raiders and to speak with Ralph for the first time in many years. Even though Joe Tom has disagreed with Ralph about his recent foray into electoral politics, he still holds him in high esteem. One of the benefits of this film could be in offering an opportunity for many of these former allies to shake hands and let bygones be bygones.
Please tell your friends in Los Angeles and Boston and NY to catch the film before we close in those cities. In addition to DC, we’ve got Austin, Dallas, Honolulu, and Wilmington coming up this weekend. We don’t have Al Gore money behind us. We depend on you to spread the word!
15 Comments
Hello–
I just saw the movie in DC, and have a quick question:
In the credit’s, what’s the “Special Apology” to Gene Stilp about?
I saw the film last night and enjoyed it as a movie-goer, but I found the framing of Mr. Nader’s role in the 2000 election dishonest.
The film cites Barry Burden of Harvard as evidence that Nader *did not intend* to spoil Gore’s chances at election. That was technically correct. Yet after reading Burden’s two — yes two — papers on Nader and this subject, I found the following:
“But many Nader voters also stated that they would have supported Gore had their candidate not been running. If the dynamics in Florida were anywhere near this average effect, it is evident that Al Gore would be president today had it been a traditional two-candidate race.”
– Burden, B.C. “Did Ralph Nader Elect George W. Bush? An Analysis of Minor Parties in the 2000 Presidential Election,” at 12. http://wc.wustl.edu/workingpapers/Burden.pdf
And this, from Burden’s paper on Nader’s effect on the 2004 race:
“Although Gore almost certainly would have won Florida, the Electoral College, and thus the election without Nader on the ballot (Burden 2003; Collett and Hansen 2002), complaints about spoiling unfortunately confound Nader’s effect with his intent.”
– Burden, B.C., “A Tale of Two Campaigns: Ralph Nader’s Strategy in the 2004 Presidential Election,” Political Science & Politics 39, no. 4 (Oct 2006): p. 871-874.
Not only do we hear neither of these findings in the film, we know nothing about Burden’s second paper (not even a 5 second mention).
An honest portrayal of Nader’s 2000 effect would have explained the complicated nature of the process, how Buchanan affected Bush, and the slim votes in other states. Instead, Nader cherry-picked Burden’s research - and uses an inarticulate straw-man extremist like Eric Alterman - to argue that he didn’t take the election from Gore.
This was a campaign video more than a documentary, and it ended up showing Nader to be as disrespectful of honest dialogue as George W. Bush - if not in degree, certainly in kind.
Steve here. First response is to Ross. We apologized to Gene Stilp because he was nice enough to give us a large envelope full of documents and pictures that we promised to take care of then promptly lost. Although these were valuable momentos, Gene was very gracious and forgiving.
Now for Doug. Thanks for your thoughtful post, but unfortunately, you missed the point. We were not trying to prove that Nader did not effect the election. Of course, he did. If he had not run, Al Gore might have won by enough to make it much harder for the Republicans to steal. Exit polls show that had Nader not run, 25% of his votes would have gone to Bush, 37% to Gore and the rest (38%) would not have voted at all. That 12% difference amounts to about 11,000 to 12,000 votes. Much harder to steal. Granted.
The accusations that we were exploring, however, had to do with intent. Was Nader in it to throw the election? To punish the Democrats? “He spent all his time in swing states!” That was the conventional wisdom. These were the impressions people had. That was a major source of intense anger. That’s what everyone would scream at me and Henriette. Prof. Burden’s study clearly showed that Nader’s campaign stops and ad buys pointed to a strategy geared toward maximizing his vote in order to gain the 5% that would qualify the Green Party for federal matching funds in the next election. That was the goal.
In fact, when Nader says the morning after “I think Al Gore cost me the election,” he was not being entirely facetious. Burden told us on camera (which we didn’t have time to include) that his educated guess was that many potential Nader voters did a “gut check” in the voting both and went over to Gore, because it was so close. Nader was polling at 5 to 7% right before the election. He ended up with 2.7%. It is conceiveable that Gore ended up costing Nader more votes than the other way around.
There is also something else we left out of the movie. In August of 2000 at the Democratic convention in Los Angeles, Al Gore was striking a very populist note. Rhetorically at least. He was saying, “I will fight for you against the pharmceutical companies. I will fight for you against the insurance companies etc.” At that time, Gore’s numbers went up and Nader’s numbers went down. By November, the Democratic strategists had reigned in that kind of talk. Guess what happened? Gore’s numbers went down. Nader’s numbers went back up.
There was no cherry-picking going on, especially not by Nader. He had nothing to do with this film other than agreeing to be interviewed. Burden was introduced to add an objective factual study to two of the major questions: Was Nader spending inordinate amounts of time in swing states in order to “spoil” the election? And, should he have dropped out? Burden’s answers were an emphatic “no” and “no.” If he had said the opposite, we would have showed that. But, he didn’t.
As for 2004, the point seemed moot. Burden’s study of that did show that Nader’s campaign stops were more geared to swing states. That had more to do with fighting ballot access issues than anything else. The Democrats spent millions of dollars trying to knock Nader off of ballots in swing states. That’s where the fight was.
The Democrats still lost the general election. Who do you blame for this one?
Here’s the bottom line. In 2000, the Democratic party leadership screwed up royally. Gore doesn’t win his home state or Clinton’s. 250,000 registered Democrats in Florida vote for Geroge Bush. Instead of asking for a full state recount, they only want the four Democratically heavy counties recounted, which makes it easier for the Supreme Court to stop the process. Instead of taking responsibility for all of that, they blamed it on Ralph Nader. Why blame Nader? He got the most votes of course. Why did he get the most votes? Because his ideas are actually viable. Trust me, that scares both parties.
The more troubling part of your post, however, is the attitude that elections can be “spoiled.” Unfortunately, your attitude is all too common. That’s really the point you missed. Apparently, certain people have a right to run and cetain parties have a right to put up candidates and others don’t. Your votes are owned by either the Democratic or Republican Party. Those are your choices. Anyone else is a “spoiler.” We are limited to a narrow range of ideas and options. Shut up and accept that. That’s democracy?
Consider that before you call us “dishonest” and compare Ralph Nader to George W. Bush.
Addendum: I don’t consider Eric Alterman an “inarticulate straw man.” He is a respected columnist for The Nation and a Ph D. in American history. And he certainly was not the only critic in the film. You are forgetting Todd Gitlin and Michael Moore and Morton Mintz and Jimmy Carter and James Carville and some of the early Raiders like Gary Sellers, Joe Tom Easley, Gene Karpinski and even Joan Claybrook. Show me the campaign film that has a Murderers Row of critics like that. Or the public figure who could take that abuse and still have you complaining that it was too positive.
There has always been something that really bothers me about the democrats’ response to Nader: “He cost us the election.” What is the thinking behind that? The arrogance that they accuse Nader of? The belief that they alone can save the world? Aggression against anyone who might question their “ownership” of the left leaning voters? I’m sorry, but the democrats lost me when they allowed the US economy leave the working class behind in the ’90s. Al Gore lost me when he said nothing as SUVs became the vehicle of choice while he was the vice president. Al Gore lost my vote while interviewing with Barbara Walters–when he answered her question: “Why were humans put on this earth?” and he answered, “To glorify Him.” I’m sorry, but Ralph Nader did not steal any election from the Democrats. Ralph Nader gave me and many others a reason to believe that this country could still offer alternatives to what was being offered by the Democrats and Republicans. Ralph Nader exposed how the media actually manipulates the whole election process by how they limit coverage to include just the two major parties. Watch that movie again. We’re losing our democracy.
I appreciate your taking the time to answer my points, Steve.
I’d like to answer in kind, however, because maybe we’re talking past each other (not least because perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I could have been). I’ll go in reverse order:
1. It was my definite impression that Eric Alterman was given the lion’s share of the Nader critics’ time and role in the film regarding the effects on the country of Nader’s 2000 run for president. His extremist comments (i.e., calling Nader a “Leninist,” etc.) were finally the source of derisive laughter in the audience and I think were probably expected to be so by the filmmakers. Alterman was clearly used as a straw-man; that may not have been the intent, but that was the effect. A more thoughtful critique of Nader and the 2000 election was obviously available - as you suggest yourself. The speaker from Columbia would have been a perfectly rational example. Again, however, on reflection, it seemed clear to me that balance wasn’t the point: that would have detracted from the appreciative intent of the film.
2. Ralph Nader’s entry in the 2000 election didn’t “spoil” the election for Al Gore. My mistake for phrasing it that way. Nader spoiled the election for the country. A Gore presidency would have been dramatically better for the nation — and the world — in the wake of 9/11, and I can’t imagine a compelling argument to the contrary. (Maybe there is one, I just haven’t seen it yet. It’s also remarkable that 9/11 wasn’t mentioned once in the film, that I can recall.) As Prof. Burden concluded - and as you appear to agree - had Nader not run, Gore would be president. I prefer that outcome not because I prefer Gore or the Democrats on general principles, but because George W. Bush has been an unmitigated disaster upon American history.
We don’t have progressive vote-counting in America, i.e., proportional representation or some such thing. We don’t have a parliamentary system in America. We may want those things but we don’t have them. We have a winner-take-all system, where voting for a third candidate can end up electing your least favorite choice. That’s what Nader did to the country in 2000.
This also has nothing to do with who has a “right” to run or not. It has everything to do with the system as it exists, and either fixing it or manipulating it to the best interests of the people. Two thirds of the film shows Mr. Nader doing just that, and then spends the last third denying that his 2000 run in fact contradicted that effort, which it certainly did.
3. My belief is that you can’t use a scholar to properly buttress a minor premise of your argument, without also disclosing his broader conclusion that seriously contradicts your argument’s major premise. You can’t say that Nader didn’t intend to spoil the election (which the scholarship shows he did not), without saying that he did actually prevent Al Gore from becoming president. That — to me alone, perhaps — is dishonest.
I should also point out that I was wrong about the number of Prof. Burden’s papers on this topic. He’s written a total of three: the one cited in the film, and the two I mentioned.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Doug, I think we’re still talking past each other.
As to your first point, Eric Alterman reflected the real anger that exists about Ralph Nader’s run in 2000 and 2004. Yes, he was probably the most angry and was not shy about expressing that. Neither was Todd Gitlin for that matter, who called Nader “wicked” among other things. We actually toned them both down a bit in the editing. They and the others were used to speak to four questions or accusations that seemed to always come up in our conversations about Nader in 2000. 1.) He promised not to go into swing states and then turned around and spent all of his time in swing states. 2.) Nader should have dropped out in the last week. 3.) He shouldn’t have said there was not a dime’s worth of diffference between the two parties. 4.) He should have worked within the Democratic Party. Those were the accusations that Alterman and Gitlin were in the film to articulate. Their point of view represented and still represents the dominant viewpoint. That is the conventional wisdom. They were both emotional about it. People have found Alterman’s style off-putting, but we weren’t going to sugar-coat it. What we were trying to do is to let Nader and his people answer those charges. Although there was a back and forth, it was not meant to be “balanced.” It was meant to raise questions and answer them from Nader’s point of view. The audience can then decide whether they are satisfied with those answers. Obviously, you weren’t, which is fine.
I think what happens in the telling of the whole story is that by the time you get to that point in the movie and Nader’s foray into electoral politics is put into context of his entire career, a lot of that fulmination comes off as “extreme.” We were not smart enough to know that Alterman would come off to you as ridiculous. To us, he represented the mainstream viewpoint. Believe me, we’ve heard people call Ralph a lot worse. In fact, the biggest laugh in the movie is one that we did not predict. And we’re two professional comedians. It’s when Ralph says, “I think Al Gore cost me the election.” That came as a complete surprise to us. We thought that people actually might hate that because it appears to make light of a very serious event. Gitlin in the very next clip talks about how he “will never forget his seeming exhaltation at what he had proved.” Instead, people laugh. We could only figure that by that time the audience is on Nader’s side. They’ve seen what he has gone through. That can happen, even when you are telling the story from the minority point of view.
As to your second point, I’m just going to refer you to an article written today in the “ArtVoice” of Buffalo, where the movie is opening this week. Ralph speaks to all of that much better than I could. http://artvoice.com/issues/v6n9/ralph_nader_an_unreasonable_man
As to the third point, you should contact Prof Burden. He is at the University of Wisconsin now in the political science department. Ask him if he thinks his research was misrepresented. We were trying to make the point that there were many factors to the Democrats’ loss in 2000, including Ralph Nader. The Democrats, instead of looking in the mirror and asking “How did we screw up?” found it much easier to just blame Nader.
Let me also refer you to in The Chronicle Of Higher Education a review by Michael Nelson entitled “Giving the Left Somewhere to Go.”
Thanks for you post.
When will the movie be released in Canada ?Thanks.
Thanks Steve and Henriette, for making this wonderful movie. It vindicated my hope and belief in Nader.
-Amit
Saw the previews, but was out of town (briefly) when the movie was shown in Washington, D.C. Doesn’t look like the DVD will be out until summer. Can’t we get wider distribution?
I have never regretted supporting, canvassing, or voting for Ralph Nader. A lifelong admirer, I welcomed Nader’s candidacy on many levels. During the last phase, when the pressure was on Nader supporters to abandon him, I was shocked by the demands. I was working the black community with great intensity, hoping to persuade others to join me in supporting a candidate whose platform was totally compatible with our political agenda. Black people admired Nader, but feared the specter of a Bush presidency more. It was a matter of the math.
I hold on to my Nader signs, buttons, poll watcher credentials as a remembrance of a brave stand in my life. My vote for Nader was not for a spoiler; it was for a legitimate candidate, the only worthwhile candidate running in 2000. To echo Teresa S.’s view above, Gore lost his presidency. He pandered his presidency away, most notably during the controversy over the Cuban boy crisis in Miami. He thumbed his nose at President Clinton, feigning disgust over his sexacapades, admittedly tawdry acts but enhanced by Republican vigor. His disloyalty robbed him of his competitive resources…not to mention his fear of being upstaged by a more natural politician. Both Gore and the Democratic Party failed to inspire and they lost–no, they abandoned–the progressives, the unions, the working stiffs because they fell in love with the center, with aping Republicans and repelling liberalism.
Bush is not to be blamed on Nader–or those voting for Nader. If the Democrats and Gore can’t learn from this error, then history may repeat itself.
P.S. This documentary opens in Nashville, TN, this week. I plan to see it tomorrow. I hope to publish a personal article on my support of Nader2000 as recollected after seeing this documentary.
What I find really striking is how many Democrats go ballistic in blaming Nader for Gore’s loss. They simply refuse to face facts and reality. It is truly incredible.
As is cited in these comments, 250,000 registered Dems in FLA. voted for Dubya. That is it right there. Game over, Ralph did not cost Gore the election.
Further, even if you accept the phony 537 margin in the official mainstream media spin, why do these Dems ignore Greg Palast’s superb reporting that the election was stolen? Because they didn’t see it on CBS? Are these folks so weak in their search capabilities or unable to actually find news on their own?
Finally, there’s the fact that Gore couldn’t even win his home state! Pathetic.
An Unreasonable Man is a great film. Every American should see it.
I will always remember the Democratic Party establishment as being plagued with such astonishing hubris that they assume all non-conservatives will automatically vote for them. I, for one, would rather stay home than vote for a Democrat.
The fact is that we have Hillary Clinton to thank for the Iraq War, Nancy Pelosi to thank for the Patriot Act, and Barbara Lee and Ted Kennedy to thank for the No Child Left Behind Act. The fact is that we have former President Bill Clinton to thank for the loss of our First Amendment right of peaceable assembly. It was Clinton that began the policy of “free speech zones”, the practice of caging protesters a mile away from their desired destination.
I still have a funny feeling in the pit of my stomach that began when I saw the film “An Unreasonable Man”. The movie shows in detail how Nader was ordered to leave the vicinity of the 2000 presidential ‘debate’. Despite holding a valid ticket to the event, Nader was threatened with arrest if he did not vacate the area. It was a chilling scene indeed, and one that made me feel as if I was living in North Korea or China, not the United States. Of course, this horrifying incident happened while none other than Democrat Bill Clinton was President.
With Democrats like these, who needs Republicans?
I wrote a review of this movie on my blog at http://lotusnova.blogspot.com/2007/03/unreasonable-man.html
Thanks, guys, for making this excellent movie.
~Amit
Sorry that neither you nor Henriette could make it to Madison. I promise I would have had a question ready for you : ) We did have a good chat with Mr. Nader after the film on the 24th, and we had Jason Kafoury still, and the Friday night premiere Q&A with Jason and Barry Burden was very informative. People seemed particularly jazzed that night.
I knew I would love the film, but I was also very excited that not only did you manage to cram in a decent amount of his career, and get a variety of viewpoints, but you had factual stuff in it I haven’t come across in the biographies I’ve read. And I don’t mean just the 2004 stuff.
My mother and I have been getting as many people out as we can, but the limited time it’s at the theater makes it difficult, so we’ll be sure to re-recommend it to all our friends again when it’s released through Netflix.
Good luck with the rest of your releases!!
One Trackback/Pingback
[…] Update: Steve Skrovan answered my question in the comments of the official movie blog: […]
Post a Comment