p e n g u i n d e v i l

Now I have seen my share of political documentaries and I like them. They all tend to have some point that is worth thinking about and some information that is helpful in knowing about how this nation functions. But now I think I have seen what might be the most “important” of them yet. Yes, I used that high-hat phrase. While most of them tend to cover an important topic that is really rather timely, this film covers a topic whose importance goes way back in American history and will continue way forward. An issue that affects everything that happens here and elsewhere… generally in a bad way. The films focus is on a man who is continually and unfairly (though that word doesn’t quite say enough) maligned and a subject that is at the core of our nation and our problems… but which, (as is common with issues this important) any criticism of is either ignored or met with ridicule.

The movie is An Unreasonable Man, the man is Ralph Nader and the subject is (really) the two-party system. One of the key moments in the film covers the 2000 Presidential Debates in which the organization that runs these (the Commission on Presidential Debates, actually founded by the Republican and Democratic parties!) refused to let any third party candidates participate in the debates (based on some polling criteria that would surely lock them out). In fact, it not only forbid them from debating, but the state police were given pictures of all of the third party candidates and told to arrest them if they came on the premises! So this is our “democracy”? Two big, entrenched parties surrounded with cameras and police and any other smaller party is excluded and threatened with arrest if they try to enter the dialog? Well, I think that really sucks. And so does Nader. It sounds like some fascist story where, if it happened in another country, the USA would intervene to ensure a fair election. So while this is a movie about Nader, it really comes down to a movie about the rigid corporate controlled nature of our political system. Regardless of what you think of Nader and regardless of what you think of those two parties, you should at least think about this juggernaut we’ve unleashed on ourselves. You should at least watch this movie.

I know that most people are stuck in so much Bush hatred that it has colored everything they know and feel about Ralph Nader, but who was in power for the first half of the Vietnam War, for seriously damaging America with Nafta and for blatantly ignoring the Genocide in Rwanda (because it didn’t meet the agreed upon definition of the word “Genocide”). Well, the Democrats. I do agree that we, and the whole world, would be much better off if the people who actually won the last two elections would have been allowed to take office, but I’ve got to back up Nader in that all of this is just going to keep getting worse until there is some threat to those two parties. With everyone buying into their stories, who is going to accomplish that. As they say, if you always vote for the lesser of two evils, they can both keep getting eviler. And for all we know, there might be 800,000 fewer corpses in Rwanda if GHWB would have won re-election.

All that accusation about how Nader cost the Democrats the White house? How about: blatant and obvious fraud from the Republican party, terrible and shallow campaigns by the Democrat’s, how about 11% of democrats voted for Bush when only 6% of republicans voted for Kerry, general voter disinterest and a distrust that leads millions and millions away from the polls and, most scandalous to me, the Democrats (even when they were still in the white house!) rolling over and letting the Bush campaign get away with obvious and heavily documented cheating. How can you, in a close vote, let a candidates campaign co-chair and the brother of the same candidate control the election? And let them illegally cancel recounts as their guy was losing ground? The only reason I can think of that Clinton-Gore didn’t really solve the issue was because the Democrats didn’t want to upset the system too much. Both parties have everything to lose if a equal ground for political parties opens up. It’s just another lie from the big parties in a successful attempt to scare people away from their real political freedom, from their freedom to vote their conscience instead of their fears. And honestly, speaking from the experience of living in an area that once gave around 15% of its vote to Nader, I feel safe in saying that most people who voted for Nader wouldn’t have voted for either of the “big two” candidates, so he didn’t steal votes from anyone, he just got more people to vote. Maybe people that the big two don’t want voting? If the Democrats could have got more Democrats to not vote Republican, they would have easily won. Who’s fault is that?

The only way these two rogue parties will ever be held accountable is if they feel threatened. There is so much money and power in doing things the way that they are done now, who would give it up otherwise? Any actually decent candidate from one of those parties (Howard Dean, anyone) would pose such a threat to the status quo that even their own party would shut them down. The good of power is money (and more power) and if it’s not good for that goose, the national committees would never back it up.

Yes, Bush is easily the worst president ever (well, at least worse to the “American way”, to freedom, to justice and to the rest of the world, well, and to Americans in general). And yes, those two spineless democrats would have been much better for everyone (honestly though, after seeing Going Upriver I gained some appreciation for Kerry… but Gore has always had a creepy, “I’ll say whatever you want to hear and kiss your baby” crooked small town politician feel to him). But enough of the short run. Enough of now and of the next ten years. Look at how much havoc this system has wreaked on the world and it should stop. Other voices need to be allowed in the national political debate (thank god for local politics!).

Any respect I may have had for Eric Alterman and Todd Gitlin goes out the window in this film as their ire towards someone who is working towards the goal of: expanding our political arena, our political choices, the strength of our democracy, the dialogs that politicians take on and ending the corruption in the system, blinds them to any criticism of the Democrats or the system. But it was great to see two of my favorite figures! I was obsessed with Phil Donahue, back in the day, when he seemed to be easily the smartest man on tv. And Nader? I was born into a Nader friendly household right as his fame was blooming and he (and his vast body of pro-people, pro-society, anti-corruption deeds) have always seemed a great icon of truth and a glowing example of the good that could be done here, if only people cared and tried. I have never been a supportee of either big party (though, of course, my voting record is highly democratic) and I feel that those parties should start to rely on their own strengths instead of subverting the parties that are looking for something different. I think that a lot of people would like to see the end of the corruption and the rise of a political election system where you don’t have to join up with one of two clubs and get powerful and wealthy organizations to back you (to the tune of tens of millions of dollars) just to get your word out and compete equally. Moving past the Republicrats is the only way that is going to happen.

Anyway, what ever you think of all this, people owe it to themselves and others to see this movie and think it over. And, while you’re at it, rent The Candidate.