What do you think?
Rate this book
Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State
Ralph Nader, one of the most influential Americans of the 20th century, has fought for justice in America for over half a century. He strongly believes that—contrary to conventional political wisdom regarding extreme partisanship—significant change can be accomplished by focusing on issues that most Americans, regardless of political labels, agree are important and need to be addressed. This book is about the emerging political re-alignment that is combining the Left and the Right against corporate tyranny.
One of the most urgent issues of our time is the dominant corporate control of the United States economy and political process. Large segments from the progressive, conservative, and libertarian political camps find themselves aligned on a variety of issues, such as opposing the destruction of civil liberties, the draining corporate welfare state, the expansion of America's aggressive wars, and the growing intensity of Wall Street crimes. All of these issues can be traced back to the growing influence of corporate goliaths and their ability to combine forces with indentured government against the interests of the broader public.
Nader urges Americans to fight back with unlikely allies. He draws on half a century of his own experience working at the grassroots and in Congress and tells of many surprising victories that have united progressive and conservative forces. As a participator and active observer of these budding alliances, he breaks new ground in showing how these coalitions can expand to achieve power on Capitol Hill, in the courts, and in the arena of public opinion. These examples provide a blueprint for how Americans on both sides of the aisle can fight against the corporate agenda, and reclaim their right to consume safe foods and drugs, breathe clean air, become fairly rewarded for their daily work, regain control of taxpayer assets, and obtain greater voice in the decisions that affect them.
This book shows how corporatist strategies of divide-and-rule can be overcome through a united front, in order to enact long overdue changes in our country. Far from espousing “let’s meet half-way� type compromises, Nader argues that it is in the interest of citizens of different political labels to join in the struggle against the corporate state that is ruining the Republic, trampling our constitution, and pushing the American people into the ground.
One of the most urgent issues of our time is the dominant corporate control of the United States economy and political process. Large segments from the progressive, conservative, and libertarian political camps find themselves aligned on a variety of issues, such as opposing the destruction of civil liberties, the draining corporate welfare state, the expansion of America's aggressive wars, and the growing intensity of Wall Street crimes. All of these issues can be traced back to the growing influence of corporate goliaths and their ability to combine forces with indentured government against the interests of the broader public.
Nader urges Americans to fight back with unlikely allies. He draws on half a century of his own experience working at the grassroots and in Congress and tells of many surprising victories that have united progressive and conservative forces. As a participator and active observer of these budding alliances, he breaks new ground in showing how these coalitions can expand to achieve power on Capitol Hill, in the courts, and in the arena of public opinion. These examples provide a blueprint for how Americans on both sides of the aisle can fight against the corporate agenda, and reclaim their right to consume safe foods and drugs, breathe clean air, become fairly rewarded for their daily work, regain control of taxpayer assets, and obtain greater voice in the decisions that affect them.
This book shows how corporatist strategies of divide-and-rule can be overcome through a united front, in order to enact long overdue changes in our country. Far from espousing “let’s meet half-way� type compromises, Nader argues that it is in the interest of citizens of different political labels to join in the struggle against the corporate state that is ruining the Republic, trampling our constitution, and pushing the American people into the ground.
240 pages, Hardcover
First published April 15, 2014
43 people are currently reading
539 people want to read
About the author
Ralph Nader
126Ìýbooks256ÌýfollowersAmerican attorney, author, lecturer, political activist, and candidate for President of the United States in five elections, including the last election 0f 2008, with his role in the 2000 election in particular being subject to much debate.
Areas of particular concern to Nader include consumer rights, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government. Nader is the first Arab American presidential candidate in the U.S.
Areas of particular concern to Nader include consumer rights, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government. Nader is the first Arab American presidential candidate in the U.S.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
February 6, 2016
George Carlin groused that when he heard the word bipartisanship, he knew a larger than usual deception was in the works. Ralph Nader's Unstoppable offers a different kind of bipartisanship -- cooperation, not conspiracy. Written primarily to a progressive audience, Nader draws on his reading of Russell Kirk and F.A. Hayek to share the good news: there are people who share the similar values in both political wings, and plenty of room to work together against a common enemy. What common enemy? The crony-capitalist state, the nemesis of both progressives who fear the power of modern-day robber barons, and of libertarians and conservatives who value free markets, the rule of law, and civic order.
Nader opens Unstoppable with a victory several decades old: the termination of a particular nuclear project based on a alliance between progressive environmentalists and fiscal conservatives. Although joining forces with conservatives was initially a pragmatic move, in the decades that followed, Nader familiarized himself with both conservative and libertarian literature. Nader deserves kudos, for while it's not unusual for those passionate about politics to learn their opponents' arguments merely to demonstrate to them while they are wrong, Nader seems to have gained a genuine sense of empathy for those on the other side. Humanistic concern runs through each political camp considered here, a commonality that can be the basis of cooperative action. What most progressives think of as conservatism, Nader writes, is a new thing, the product of decades of slow corporate corruption of the political state. Its subsidies to multinationals, the benefaction rendered by regulations that smother competition, conserve nothing -- and nor do they promote liberty. Nader may still disagree those on the right, but underneath the ideology, he writes, we are still human beings who, when confronted with abuses, want to help one another.
The alliances that can be created vary. Progressivism's opponents may agree on opposing the State's growing activity in everyday life, but they don't agree with one another. Take the environment: some of the United States' most sweeping conservationist legislation was enacted by presidents like Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, and environmentalism lends itself well to the language of conservatism; think 'stewardship'. Progressive horror at the inroads consumerism is making in the lives of children can find kindred spirits in the ranks of social conservatives, especially the religious who fear their children becoming selfish and materialistic. Libertarians who swear more by the market than moral order may object to progressive-conservatives limiting choice by barring certain kinds of advertising, for instance, but when it comes to forswearing money given to corporations they're stalwart allies. Another area of progressive-libertarian camaraderie is ending the drug war, which even Old Right types could be convinced to join if shown how the war has completely destroyed civil law enforcement in favor of pseudo-military police enforcement. Free trade is a particularly thorny issue: libertarians may be for it, and paleo-conservatives against it, but there's a fuzzy thin line between protectionism (which progressives might back) and cronyism.
In the latter half of his book, Nader puts forth a list of twenty-five issues that progressives can work with either libertarians or paleo- and populist conservatives on, or both. Some of them involve the federal government doing more, which I don't think will sell well in allying with groups who view federal overreach as the entire point of opposition. It's a let's-get-the-Wehrmacht-out-of-Paris-before-we-strengthen-it-against-Stalin situation. Others involve a heart dose of localism. like promoting 'community self reliance', and distributive electrical grids. At one point Nader quoted Who Owns America?, the classic agrarian-distributist critique of the then- nascent plutocracy, and I may have swooned. Considering that two of the major contenders for the presidency have nebulous connections to their respective parties -- the independent socialist Sanders and the populist Trump -- Americans' frustration with the reigning RepubliCrat scheme seems ripe for this kind of cooperation. I only wish Nader had put more emphasis on local cooperation, which is further removed from ideology, and more motivated by having to work with the facts at hand. Non-progressives will find Nader's repeated assertion that progressives have less interest in ideology than facts to be dubious, and for the record I think that comes a little too close to holding that the ends are more important than the means. It's not enough to take steps to take care of what ails us: we should have some idea of where we are going. If we allow power to accrete in the name of "doing something", then we'll simply pave the way for future abuses.
Quarrels withstanding I found Unstoppable to be an immensely heartening book, a reassuring dose of civility and cooperation. I think if more Americans read it -- progressives, liberals, conservatives, and even those power-enabling rascals in the middle, the liberals and neocons, we might see each other more as people with genuine convictions, and not merely wrongheaded enemies who need to be defeated and driven from the field. When the talking heads on TV, both the announcers and the candidates, drive one to despair, consider Nader's humane rebuttal. Genuine hope for America may not be forlorn.
(And where else are you going to find a book with a Green party progressive hailing decentralism and lamenting over the problems of regulatory capture and bureaucratic quagmire?)
Related:
Crunchy Cons, Rob Dreher
Citizen Power, Mike Gravel
What's Wrong with the World?, G.K. Chesterton
We Who Dared Say no to War, ed. Murray Polner and Tom Woods. (Men of the left and right, respectively.)
Nader opens Unstoppable with a victory several decades old: the termination of a particular nuclear project based on a alliance between progressive environmentalists and fiscal conservatives. Although joining forces with conservatives was initially a pragmatic move, in the decades that followed, Nader familiarized himself with both conservative and libertarian literature. Nader deserves kudos, for while it's not unusual for those passionate about politics to learn their opponents' arguments merely to demonstrate to them while they are wrong, Nader seems to have gained a genuine sense of empathy for those on the other side. Humanistic concern runs through each political camp considered here, a commonality that can be the basis of cooperative action. What most progressives think of as conservatism, Nader writes, is a new thing, the product of decades of slow corporate corruption of the political state. Its subsidies to multinationals, the benefaction rendered by regulations that smother competition, conserve nothing -- and nor do they promote liberty. Nader may still disagree those on the right, but underneath the ideology, he writes, we are still human beings who, when confronted with abuses, want to help one another.
The alliances that can be created vary. Progressivism's opponents may agree on opposing the State's growing activity in everyday life, but they don't agree with one another. Take the environment: some of the United States' most sweeping conservationist legislation was enacted by presidents like Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, and environmentalism lends itself well to the language of conservatism; think 'stewardship'. Progressive horror at the inroads consumerism is making in the lives of children can find kindred spirits in the ranks of social conservatives, especially the religious who fear their children becoming selfish and materialistic. Libertarians who swear more by the market than moral order may object to progressive-conservatives limiting choice by barring certain kinds of advertising, for instance, but when it comes to forswearing money given to corporations they're stalwart allies. Another area of progressive-libertarian camaraderie is ending the drug war, which even Old Right types could be convinced to join if shown how the war has completely destroyed civil law enforcement in favor of pseudo-military police enforcement. Free trade is a particularly thorny issue: libertarians may be for it, and paleo-conservatives against it, but there's a fuzzy thin line between protectionism (which progressives might back) and cronyism.
In the latter half of his book, Nader puts forth a list of twenty-five issues that progressives can work with either libertarians or paleo- and populist conservatives on, or both. Some of them involve the federal government doing more, which I don't think will sell well in allying with groups who view federal overreach as the entire point of opposition. It's a let's-get-the-Wehrmacht-out-of-Paris-before-we-strengthen-it-against-Stalin situation. Others involve a heart dose of localism. like promoting 'community self reliance', and distributive electrical grids. At one point Nader quoted Who Owns America?, the classic agrarian-distributist critique of the then- nascent plutocracy, and I may have swooned. Considering that two of the major contenders for the presidency have nebulous connections to their respective parties -- the independent socialist Sanders and the populist Trump -- Americans' frustration with the reigning RepubliCrat scheme seems ripe for this kind of cooperation. I only wish Nader had put more emphasis on local cooperation, which is further removed from ideology, and more motivated by having to work with the facts at hand. Non-progressives will find Nader's repeated assertion that progressives have less interest in ideology than facts to be dubious, and for the record I think that comes a little too close to holding that the ends are more important than the means. It's not enough to take steps to take care of what ails us: we should have some idea of where we are going. If we allow power to accrete in the name of "doing something", then we'll simply pave the way for future abuses.
Quarrels withstanding I found Unstoppable to be an immensely heartening book, a reassuring dose of civility and cooperation. I think if more Americans read it -- progressives, liberals, conservatives, and even those power-enabling rascals in the middle, the liberals and neocons, we might see each other more as people with genuine convictions, and not merely wrongheaded enemies who need to be defeated and driven from the field. When the talking heads on TV, both the announcers and the candidates, drive one to despair, consider Nader's humane rebuttal. Genuine hope for America may not be forlorn.
(And where else are you going to find a book with a Green party progressive hailing decentralism and lamenting over the problems of regulatory capture and bureaucratic quagmire?)
Related:
Crunchy Cons, Rob Dreher
Citizen Power, Mike Gravel
What's Wrong with the World?, G.K. Chesterton
We Who Dared Say no to War, ed. Murray Polner and Tom Woods. (Men of the left and right, respectively.)
February 8, 2015
Ralph Nader has probably pushed through more pieces of important federal legislation than most members of Congress (a low bar these days, I know). He's fiercely passionate about the issues he works on, but that only gets you so far. Nader is also a savvy strategist who knows how to start building consensus, something that's become increasingly difficult to do in the current my-way-or-the-highway political climate.
But a modern left-right alliance is perfectly possible, he argues, and it's the only way to rein in the corporate plutocracy that is stomping all over our democracy. Addressing reasonable people on the left and right, Nader lays out a number of big issues where common ground can be found, with detailed reasoning. He acknowledges some of the challenges, and usually offers suggestions for leaping those hurdles. And he doesn't give either side a pass. He castigates both for their missteps and hypocrisies. Ralph Nader is, as ever, a straight-shooter.
For the skeptics, he shows that cooperation between left and right--even now--is more common than the media and many politicians would have us believe, and gives specific examples.
A well-conceived guide for moving forward, from someone who's been in the trenches for decades.
But a modern left-right alliance is perfectly possible, he argues, and it's the only way to rein in the corporate plutocracy that is stomping all over our democracy. Addressing reasonable people on the left and right, Nader lays out a number of big issues where common ground can be found, with detailed reasoning. He acknowledges some of the challenges, and usually offers suggestions for leaping those hurdles. And he doesn't give either side a pass. He castigates both for their missteps and hypocrisies. Ralph Nader is, as ever, a straight-shooter.
For the skeptics, he shows that cooperation between left and right--even now--is more common than the media and many politicians would have us believe, and gives specific examples.
A well-conceived guide for moving forward, from someone who's been in the trenches for decades.
September 26, 2014
"Wonky" is the word. Fact-based, optimism-tainted. It's hard to disagree with Ol Ralph but very easy to differ. He rails against the corporate state we find ourselves in, points to feasible ways out and areas of what should be easy accord among liberals and con-- libs and cons-- LC's. He smashes the terms together to suggest there will be plenty of people in the middle, in a political union. I'm just much more pessimistic. Ralph HAS to be optimistic to do what he does. Especially when he rails against today's youth and their immersion in "screens" instead of one another. Well, sorry Ralph, we are only the creatures we evolved to be. Idealists, optimists, by their nature, deny or reject human nature. This is further evidence of the futility of hope. Bright-side documentation of disaster. Is there anything in human history to suggest that we could universally agree on a course of action? Combat something as grim and long-term as climate change? We are a frail, fractious species and there are simply more important issues than our political gridlock.
Oddly enough my dad read this, and he doesn't read anything.
Oddly enough my dad read this, and he doesn't read anything.
May 18, 2014
I'm too young to have been a Nader voter back in 2000, but having read this short political screed by the former Green Party nom, I might have been.
Respected as he is by those on both the Left and the Right, Ralph Nader attempts to make the case that most politically-active Americans have strong areas of convergence when it comes to restraining and dismantling the corporate state. Instead of focusing on the social issues that are used to divide and incite the population every election cycle, he lays out the areas where most of us agree:
* Auditing the Department of Defense
* End corporate welfare
* Enact tax reform
* Break up "too big to fail" banks
* Expand contributions to charity
* Expand direct democracy
* Encourage patronage of community-rooted businesses
...and probably 20 more.
And he's right! On many of these issues, people on both sides of the political spectrum would agree, though I think he does overstate the conservative case for environmentalism � he must not speak to the same armchair conservatives that I do, the Baby Boomer types in strong denial about their contributions to the destruction of their ecological inheritance. But that's a digression.
Nader spends a lot of energy on conservatives, pointing out areas where thought leaders champion these areas of convergence. And I think that's a good thing, because the Fox News-esque caricature of the conservative has become a non-starter to dialogue for at least the last 20 years. Similarly, he takes down liberals for overlooking moldy areas in their own ideological backyard, like labor union corruption and the breathless defense of any and all entitlement programs.
The book is measured and thoughtful, and is likely to ring true in a lot of ways to thoughtful people on whatever part of the political spectrum one falls. But what prevents this book from being a real must-read on political convergence is his prescription for the future.
Some of them are just highly unlikely, like the enactment of a transaction tax on Wall Street transactions to pay for a Wall Street watchdog agency. We can all ride our flying pigs to Washington to see that one enacted. But far and away the most glaring is his repeated appeals to billionaires to help fund one or another of his policy ideas. The book even finishes with a letter to billionaires to come and fund efforts to advance convergence.
It reads to me like an appeal for a real-life deus ex machina. I had a hard time deciding whether such a point was infuriating or just sad. It certainly undermines the mobilization potential of the book, if the best we can do is appeal to our betters to change things for us. It's an excuse for inaction, and a sorry punctuation mark to an otherwise optimistic book.
Respected as he is by those on both the Left and the Right, Ralph Nader attempts to make the case that most politically-active Americans have strong areas of convergence when it comes to restraining and dismantling the corporate state. Instead of focusing on the social issues that are used to divide and incite the population every election cycle, he lays out the areas where most of us agree:
* Auditing the Department of Defense
* End corporate welfare
* Enact tax reform
* Break up "too big to fail" banks
* Expand contributions to charity
* Expand direct democracy
* Encourage patronage of community-rooted businesses
...and probably 20 more.
And he's right! On many of these issues, people on both sides of the political spectrum would agree, though I think he does overstate the conservative case for environmentalism � he must not speak to the same armchair conservatives that I do, the Baby Boomer types in strong denial about their contributions to the destruction of their ecological inheritance. But that's a digression.
Nader spends a lot of energy on conservatives, pointing out areas where thought leaders champion these areas of convergence. And I think that's a good thing, because the Fox News-esque caricature of the conservative has become a non-starter to dialogue for at least the last 20 years. Similarly, he takes down liberals for overlooking moldy areas in their own ideological backyard, like labor union corruption and the breathless defense of any and all entitlement programs.
The book is measured and thoughtful, and is likely to ring true in a lot of ways to thoughtful people on whatever part of the political spectrum one falls. But what prevents this book from being a real must-read on political convergence is his prescription for the future.
Some of them are just highly unlikely, like the enactment of a transaction tax on Wall Street transactions to pay for a Wall Street watchdog agency. We can all ride our flying pigs to Washington to see that one enacted. But far and away the most glaring is his repeated appeals to billionaires to help fund one or another of his policy ideas. The book even finishes with a letter to billionaires to come and fund efforts to advance convergence.
It reads to me like an appeal for a real-life deus ex machina. I had a hard time deciding whether such a point was infuriating or just sad. It certainly undermines the mobilization potential of the book, if the best we can do is appeal to our betters to change things for us. It's an excuse for inaction, and a sorry punctuation mark to an otherwise optimistic book.
February 4, 2015
I was attracted to the idea of finding common ground between right and left as the basis for political change, and I'll give credit to Nader for the attempt.
On occasion Nader notes an equal share of blame for "corporatism" between right and left, but he just can't resist placing most of the blame for every ill in the world on conservatives. He cherry picks his historical "facts" and quotes from noted conservative thinkers, showing them as "reasonable" but only so he can attack the unreasonableness of current-day conservatives (who are clearly bought by corporations). To Nader, all conservatives are on the take, and liberals must be careful not to fall into the same trap. If America can convince the conservatives to be reasonable, like their forefathers, then the right/left alliance would be good to go (liberals are already reasonable because they don't rely on 18th century philosophers or have such guiding philosophy, they just go with what they observe empirically 'on the ground.')
Come on, Ralph. There's no difference between the set of conservative or liberal politicians when it comes to power, ego, and reliance on special interests. Some are honorable, some are skunks. And not EVERY corporation in the world is greedy and evil. There is no one "corporate interest" steering everything. Corporations often work at cross purposes. And what about the many money-spreading organizations that are technically not "corporations" like the NRA, or AARP, or various Union, Religious or Environmental groups? These can be just as corrupting as corporations. I would have found Nader's arguments more compelling had he presented them with more objectivity. I think he's so intensely focused outside of the book on bashing "corporations" and "conservatives" that he has a hard time escaping his bias inside the book - to the detriment of his overall desire for common ground.
At the end of the day, Ralph's big idea is to recruit a few billionaires to fund a right/left groundswell. He even includes a letter to them in a chapter titled "Dear Billionaire" (or something like that). Once the billionaires get things rolling, we'll presumably pass a bunch of good laws, with "good" politicians who are free of the corporations. Then, power will be returned to the people. Okay, Ralph. Thanks, man.
On occasion Nader notes an equal share of blame for "corporatism" between right and left, but he just can't resist placing most of the blame for every ill in the world on conservatives. He cherry picks his historical "facts" and quotes from noted conservative thinkers, showing them as "reasonable" but only so he can attack the unreasonableness of current-day conservatives (who are clearly bought by corporations). To Nader, all conservatives are on the take, and liberals must be careful not to fall into the same trap. If America can convince the conservatives to be reasonable, like their forefathers, then the right/left alliance would be good to go (liberals are already reasonable because they don't rely on 18th century philosophers or have such guiding philosophy, they just go with what they observe empirically 'on the ground.')
Come on, Ralph. There's no difference between the set of conservative or liberal politicians when it comes to power, ego, and reliance on special interests. Some are honorable, some are skunks. And not EVERY corporation in the world is greedy and evil. There is no one "corporate interest" steering everything. Corporations often work at cross purposes. And what about the many money-spreading organizations that are technically not "corporations" like the NRA, or AARP, or various Union, Religious or Environmental groups? These can be just as corrupting as corporations. I would have found Nader's arguments more compelling had he presented them with more objectivity. I think he's so intensely focused outside of the book on bashing "corporations" and "conservatives" that he has a hard time escaping his bias inside the book - to the detriment of his overall desire for common ground.
At the end of the day, Ralph's big idea is to recruit a few billionaires to fund a right/left groundswell. He even includes a letter to them in a chapter titled "Dear Billionaire" (or something like that). Once the billionaires get things rolling, we'll presumably pass a bunch of good laws, with "good" politicians who are free of the corporations. Then, power will be returned to the people. Okay, Ralph. Thanks, man.
May 4, 2020
Man, another 4.5 star book, but this one unexpected. It's been a while since I truly devoured a book like this, but the combination of being stuck at home, its timeliness, nice weather, and the peace of Clark Park meant I finished it in 2 days. I first glanced at this book when I was 16 and it came out but then never got around to reading until now. If you put aside the fact that Nader may have helped give us the President he spends so long criticizing, it's a darn good read. We desperately need the new kind of cooperation Nader seeks.
First, my small gripes with the book (the -0.5 star stuff). Nader repeatedly mischaracterizes TARP. I shouldn't be shocked, but it actually saved taxpayer money and prevented the floor from falling out of the economy. He also doesn't acknowledge that stress tests DID happen before capital infusion in the recession. Plus there's a seeming lack of knowledge about the Federal Reserve. I know this is left-wing red meat to be expected, but it's annoying once you've learned how these things work. Additionally, while I think I get what he means by the procedure/substance distinction, he could do better to make it explicit.
Now, on to the things that would merit a 5 star rating if not for my nerdy gripe. Nader's focus is on the potential for left-right convergence and it amazes me how well-researched this is. He draws on himself, Russell Kirk, Robert Taft, Pat Buchanan, Dennis Kucinich, David Stockman, (and many many more) and provides ample examples of the left and right working together. These examples demonstrate both the promise and the pitfalls of convergence. I guess that's what a lifetime of reading and politicking confers on an activist. Such a powerful case for new coalitions is a rare thing to find.
Nader sees 25 areas for cooperation ranging from combatting obesity to ending the war on drugs to taking on eminent domain. For each, he recognizes potential and often points to pre-existing examples. Most of them make sense, although a few (a national institute for convergence as cool as it may sound) are unlikely. To his credit, Nader pinpoints MANY obstacles. Centrally, bipartisan corporate influence stymies progress. Sometimes, this means that actors speak one thing but act another way (eg: early 2000s discussion of corporate welfare). Most perniciously, "the misuses of power and rampant commercialization and bureaucratization of almost everything have weakened our democratic institutions" (152). Nader nails the frustration people like myself, fascinated by unlikely convergence, face in our politics. He understands as an outsider the grip entrenched neoliberal interests have on our society and still has the drive to take them on from left and right.
Due to the persistence of corporate power in both parties, Nader shows a surprising pragmatism. For somebody painted as an unrelenting left-winger, he often engages with unlikely allies. That's the only way you get praise from paleoconservative Ron Unz, marketer Grover Norquist, and socialist Cornel West on your book jacket! For instance, Nader always ran on a left-wing agenda, but here he extensively praises the quasi-distributist vision of Southern Agrarian Herbert Agar (whose work I now want to read). It's not often that you hear a left-wing paean to the Southern Agrarians, but it's refreshing. He also criticizes the left's sometimes-statism, overly programmatic nature, and unwillingness to call out corrupt unions and Communist tyrants. Surprising stuff!
Throughout, there's a productive, thought-provoking tension between problems and solutions. Ralph Nader, can be idealistic at times but recognizes that these coalitions take time. While praising discussion, he bemoans those who make no effort to go beyond it. While looking for the philosophical grounding in true conservatism (not the shambolic corporate kind), he also calls for activists to move past abstraction and focus on the ground-level issues. But while cutting through abstraction, we need to find convergence through the philosophers. Throughout, he advocates for convergence, but not for compromise on our principles, while recognizing that left and right may have different reasons for seeking the same goal (a tough pill to swallow for some). This seeming dissonance doesn't weaken his arguments though. Instead, it reflects thoughtfulness. The whole book is really about wielding seeming tension for the greater good. Indeed, that's what makes it so powerful. If you read it, take the time to digest his points. Take notes, think of real-world examples. Remember that Nader's vision of targeted convergence is grounded in philosophy but guided by tangible impulses and actions.
Nader ends the book with an appeal to billionaires (more pragmatic than the DSA types who call them all evil), a recognition that most of all what's missing are resources and connections. This is a huge obstacle, as I noted underlying the many smaller obstacles he notes throughout. But if we can overcome it, the advice Nader provides throughout could build a real movement.
In our current moment, we see Nader's ideas coming into action. It's always said that there are no atheists in a foxhole. In evaluating the Southern Agrarians, Nader discusses how crisis forced people to put aside labels and think of how to resolve the suffering at their doorstep. This forged precisely the cross-cutting coalitions he advocates for. Once again, we find ourselves in a moment of crisis. Whether we can come together to overcome the immense obstacles Nader notes remains to be seen. But there are promising signs. I emerge from "Unstoppable" with renewed vigor for finding convergence, especially because I look around in this crisis and finally see it. (take this article for example: ) Today, "Unstoppable" is timely as can be. I absolutely recommend it!
First, my small gripes with the book (the -0.5 star stuff). Nader repeatedly mischaracterizes TARP. I shouldn't be shocked, but it actually saved taxpayer money and prevented the floor from falling out of the economy. He also doesn't acknowledge that stress tests DID happen before capital infusion in the recession. Plus there's a seeming lack of knowledge about the Federal Reserve. I know this is left-wing red meat to be expected, but it's annoying once you've learned how these things work. Additionally, while I think I get what he means by the procedure/substance distinction, he could do better to make it explicit.
Now, on to the things that would merit a 5 star rating if not for my nerdy gripe. Nader's focus is on the potential for left-right convergence and it amazes me how well-researched this is. He draws on himself, Russell Kirk, Robert Taft, Pat Buchanan, Dennis Kucinich, David Stockman, (and many many more) and provides ample examples of the left and right working together. These examples demonstrate both the promise and the pitfalls of convergence. I guess that's what a lifetime of reading and politicking confers on an activist. Such a powerful case for new coalitions is a rare thing to find.
Nader sees 25 areas for cooperation ranging from combatting obesity to ending the war on drugs to taking on eminent domain. For each, he recognizes potential and often points to pre-existing examples. Most of them make sense, although a few (a national institute for convergence as cool as it may sound) are unlikely. To his credit, Nader pinpoints MANY obstacles. Centrally, bipartisan corporate influence stymies progress. Sometimes, this means that actors speak one thing but act another way (eg: early 2000s discussion of corporate welfare). Most perniciously, "the misuses of power and rampant commercialization and bureaucratization of almost everything have weakened our democratic institutions" (152). Nader nails the frustration people like myself, fascinated by unlikely convergence, face in our politics. He understands as an outsider the grip entrenched neoliberal interests have on our society and still has the drive to take them on from left and right.
Due to the persistence of corporate power in both parties, Nader shows a surprising pragmatism. For somebody painted as an unrelenting left-winger, he often engages with unlikely allies. That's the only way you get praise from paleoconservative Ron Unz, marketer Grover Norquist, and socialist Cornel West on your book jacket! For instance, Nader always ran on a left-wing agenda, but here he extensively praises the quasi-distributist vision of Southern Agrarian Herbert Agar (whose work I now want to read). It's not often that you hear a left-wing paean to the Southern Agrarians, but it's refreshing. He also criticizes the left's sometimes-statism, overly programmatic nature, and unwillingness to call out corrupt unions and Communist tyrants. Surprising stuff!
Throughout, there's a productive, thought-provoking tension between problems and solutions. Ralph Nader, can be idealistic at times but recognizes that these coalitions take time. While praising discussion, he bemoans those who make no effort to go beyond it. While looking for the philosophical grounding in true conservatism (not the shambolic corporate kind), he also calls for activists to move past abstraction and focus on the ground-level issues. But while cutting through abstraction, we need to find convergence through the philosophers. Throughout, he advocates for convergence, but not for compromise on our principles, while recognizing that left and right may have different reasons for seeking the same goal (a tough pill to swallow for some). This seeming dissonance doesn't weaken his arguments though. Instead, it reflects thoughtfulness. The whole book is really about wielding seeming tension for the greater good. Indeed, that's what makes it so powerful. If you read it, take the time to digest his points. Take notes, think of real-world examples. Remember that Nader's vision of targeted convergence is grounded in philosophy but guided by tangible impulses and actions.
Nader ends the book with an appeal to billionaires (more pragmatic than the DSA types who call them all evil), a recognition that most of all what's missing are resources and connections. This is a huge obstacle, as I noted underlying the many smaller obstacles he notes throughout. But if we can overcome it, the advice Nader provides throughout could build a real movement.
In our current moment, we see Nader's ideas coming into action. It's always said that there are no atheists in a foxhole. In evaluating the Southern Agrarians, Nader discusses how crisis forced people to put aside labels and think of how to resolve the suffering at their doorstep. This forged precisely the cross-cutting coalitions he advocates for. Once again, we find ourselves in a moment of crisis. Whether we can come together to overcome the immense obstacles Nader notes remains to be seen. But there are promising signs. I emerge from "Unstoppable" with renewed vigor for finding convergence, especially because I look around in this crisis and finally see it. (take this article for example: ) Today, "Unstoppable" is timely as can be. I absolutely recommend it!
March 10, 2015
I thought it was extremely thought provoking. Political convergence is exactly what this country needs at the moment. There's something for everyone in this book no matter what your political orientation is. Nader blends grounded reality, philosophy, and history to try and show that our two party duopoly is drifting towards an abstract, polarized, and detached form of politics, functioning to mystify the monopolistic violence of the corporate state. I especially think the last 3-4 chapters are the most important because he sheds light on many populist conservatives that are often marginalized in the mainstream media who have "old school" conservative values such as a truly limited government that protects the individual entrepreneur, small businesses, civil rights, and economic freedom and justice—all under attack by monopolistic corporations.
July 3, 2015
Philosophically, this is one of the deepest books by Nader that I have read. The overall argument or thesis of the book is convincing: the Left & Right would be more effective if they were to converge and join forces, and despite what most would call obvious conflicts of interest, there are plenty of areas where both sides share common ground.
Nader presents convergence as the most plausible and effective way forward. After reading this book, I'd have to agree.
Nader presents convergence as the most plausible and effective way forward. After reading this book, I'd have to agree.
May 26, 2014
Great book describing how in many ways we all want some of the same things, no matter the label we attach to ourselves. No one would say clean water to drink isn't important, nor public safety from goods known by the maker to be defective. I think all elected officials should read this book... our infrastructure needs agreement and action from our leaders, not more red herring arguments about social issues and personal pride.
October 20, 2014
Absolutely loved this book! Nader understands our government and knows many of the movers and shakers in both parties. The point of this book is to move beyond party politics, especially given the inability of our two party system to perform their duties, efficiently and effectively. Ralph encourages citizens to look beyond all of the media hype and to think about issues as they stand, independent of party politics.
June 5, 2015
This is a must read for any who have felt that there was no hope for future changes to the good for our country. Nader points out the convergence over certain issues that are shared across ideological boundaries. There is a path that he describe that holds hope for a change from the stasis of our current government to proceed cooperatively. Read and be recharged in new but old ways to work in the political climate that now exists.
July 23, 2014
God bless Ralph Nader. This was really a little wonky for me, but Nader's ideas of convergence between the left and the right on issues they can agree upon (and yes, there are such issues despite what the media tries to tell us) are an ideal to aspire to.
November 6, 2014
An interesting book especially given the recent political developments in this country. Nader argues that liberals and conservatives actually have many ideals and goals in common and that they should " converge" to effect change. He describes how he believes this can happen. I hope he is right.
August 15, 2014
As a reviewer noted, very wonky. Interesting ideas.
June 8, 2023
In this captivating book Ralph Nader beats the drum over the usurping of power by the largest corporations in America, a country, he reminds us, said to possess “the best Congress money can buy�. He quotes (similar to Martin Luther King’s claim “This country has socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for the poor�), Fareed Zakaria’s “The US defence establishment is the world’s largest socialist economy�, and Gore Vidal’s “America is a unique society where you have free enterprise for the poor and socialism for the rich�. He cites many ills of present society that invite liberal-conservative (L-C) convergence, including: the undue ability of corporations to influence elections as a result of their being considered as persons from the point of view of contribution allowances; the excess corporate welfare practiced by government in favour of the largest corporations; low wages; revolving doors between top positions in corporations and government; the dearth of criminal prosecutions in relation to the causes of the 2008 recession and other instances of corporate crime; excessive deregulation; the ills coming from the military-industrial complex; international trade agreements (where the right object to loss of sovereignty, and the left to loss of employment); crony capitalism and favouritism; and the need to break up banks. If only opposite sides could come together on these.
The author claims that corporations have exploited and fostered the L-C divide in order to divide and rule, and thereby anticipate the threat of a formidable force against them. The conservative narrative has even become distorted in favour of corporations. Conservative icons of the past often did the opposite of what are presented today as conservative ideals: Adam Smith favoured social levelling through taxation; Heyek advocated universal healthcare; Milton Freidman was for controlling pollution, and he and Nixon favoured working tax credits; Ronald Regan was ideologically against corporate welfare and also introduced a record government deficit. Today’s L-C entrenched positions over such issues as gun control, net neutrality, right to life, global warming, the surveillance state, international trade agreements, Obamacare, government subsidies, minimum wage, breaking up of the big banks and separating commercial banking with investing, etc. have been accentuated and mercilessly enforced on members of each side. Nader adds the point that the conventional media are in no position to help since their DNA is attached to conflict, controversy and visible disruption. But in the end, blind adherence to one doctrine or the other ends up meaning less democracy for everybody.
The author advocates governing by issue rather than by doctrine in order to defeat vested interests trying to block progress. He cites many cases where individuals have crossed the line in the recent past (for example citing Pat Buchanan’s 2005 book “Where the Right Went Wrong� where criticism is launched against recent US corporate globalisation, military adventurism, and the neocon/corporatist takeover) in instances all too predictably labelled unholy alliances by the media. He cites polls that have shown that the American public often has a much more defined majority opinion than the numerical L-C divide might indicate.
This is a great read which makes a good case.
The author claims that corporations have exploited and fostered the L-C divide in order to divide and rule, and thereby anticipate the threat of a formidable force against them. The conservative narrative has even become distorted in favour of corporations. Conservative icons of the past often did the opposite of what are presented today as conservative ideals: Adam Smith favoured social levelling through taxation; Heyek advocated universal healthcare; Milton Freidman was for controlling pollution, and he and Nixon favoured working tax credits; Ronald Regan was ideologically against corporate welfare and also introduced a record government deficit. Today’s L-C entrenched positions over such issues as gun control, net neutrality, right to life, global warming, the surveillance state, international trade agreements, Obamacare, government subsidies, minimum wage, breaking up of the big banks and separating commercial banking with investing, etc. have been accentuated and mercilessly enforced on members of each side. Nader adds the point that the conventional media are in no position to help since their DNA is attached to conflict, controversy and visible disruption. But in the end, blind adherence to one doctrine or the other ends up meaning less democracy for everybody.
The author advocates governing by issue rather than by doctrine in order to defeat vested interests trying to block progress. He cites many cases where individuals have crossed the line in the recent past (for example citing Pat Buchanan’s 2005 book “Where the Right Went Wrong� where criticism is launched against recent US corporate globalisation, military adventurism, and the neocon/corporatist takeover) in instances all too predictably labelled unholy alliances by the media. He cites polls that have shown that the American public often has a much more defined majority opinion than the numerical L-C divide might indicate.
This is a great read which makes a good case.
April 30, 2024
Ralph Nader as a politician has done a lot of work to truly change the current status quo of US politics for the better. Based on my analysis and reading about his political actions, I truly think that he has done more good the most US politicians I am familiar with.
However, this book, is not worth it. I think finding a common ground among Democrats and Republicans in the US is crucial to the country's success, but this book does not "wake up" people to this reality. The book postulates the notion that most US citizens agree on most pressing issues like healthcare, security, the environment, company regulations, and creating a government that creates opportunities for all its citizens. This is not only true in the US, but an universal truth worldwide. We have more in common me, you, a random person in China, Mozambique or France, but the people in power would rather keep us divided. Sadly, the thesis of the book would really benefit from being analyzed through the history of social movements and how they were able to bridge the gap between people of all walks of life (Martin Luther Kings Movment, Nelson Mandela, Occupy Wallstreet etc...), but this book does not do that at all. It just mainly focuses on a few documented cases where multiple NGOs aligned in their efforts and some proposals that Nader has. Worst yet, the book's last chapter is an address to Billionaires to hopefully change their mind as to help make society less polarized. Of course society would benefit from having people united, but what makes us think that the people in power would?
Basically, while this book does accurately analyze the current societal polarization and the sad reality that divides people who have almost the same needs and wants in the US, it ends up not addressing the fact that polarization benefits people in power. If people in the US were united and broke free from the veil of ignorance due to the current hostile political and economic landscape, most people in power would not be in power for long.
Although I understand Nader's proposals and hopes, I am not betting on billionaires suddenly opening their hearts to break the system that has put them in their golden pedestals. We will only be truly unstoppable once we stop giving proposals to politicians and billionaires, once we start turning those proposals into demands. Demands with actual material consequences.
However, this book, is not worth it. I think finding a common ground among Democrats and Republicans in the US is crucial to the country's success, but this book does not "wake up" people to this reality. The book postulates the notion that most US citizens agree on most pressing issues like healthcare, security, the environment, company regulations, and creating a government that creates opportunities for all its citizens. This is not only true in the US, but an universal truth worldwide. We have more in common me, you, a random person in China, Mozambique or France, but the people in power would rather keep us divided. Sadly, the thesis of the book would really benefit from being analyzed through the history of social movements and how they were able to bridge the gap between people of all walks of life (Martin Luther Kings Movment, Nelson Mandela, Occupy Wallstreet etc...), but this book does not do that at all. It just mainly focuses on a few documented cases where multiple NGOs aligned in their efforts and some proposals that Nader has. Worst yet, the book's last chapter is an address to Billionaires to hopefully change their mind as to help make society less polarized. Of course society would benefit from having people united, but what makes us think that the people in power would?
Basically, while this book does accurately analyze the current societal polarization and the sad reality that divides people who have almost the same needs and wants in the US, it ends up not addressing the fact that polarization benefits people in power. If people in the US were united and broke free from the veil of ignorance due to the current hostile political and economic landscape, most people in power would not be in power for long.
Although I understand Nader's proposals and hopes, I am not betting on billionaires suddenly opening their hearts to break the system that has put them in their golden pedestals. We will only be truly unstoppable once we stop giving proposals to politicians and billionaires, once we start turning those proposals into demands. Demands with actual material consequences.
November 27, 2021
I have a lot of respect and admiration for Ralph Nader. While he can come across as a little too idealistic at times, his level of knowledge and understanding of the issues that plague our social and political system is second to none. In this book, Ralph articulates how people from the left and the right can work together on various issues where they share common ground. I speculate that the reader would be surprised by the level of overlap citizens and groups from the political left and right paradigms share on issues such as corporate welfare/crony capitalism, bloated military spending, the environment, and civil liberties. Ralph carefully points out how both Democratic and Republican parties are beholden to corporate and special interests and consistently fail their respective constituencies. Nader also provides substantial history and background as to how the current political system has eroded over time. In a more polarized society and unwillingness to engage in meaningful dialogue than ever before, this is one of the most important books out there. I highly recommend any liberal, progressive, conservative, libertarian, etc., read this book. There are essential takeaways that apply to anyone who cares about saving “democracy� [I use this term loosely, knowing the severe challenges that lie ahead] as we know it.
May 7, 2021
I’ve never read anything by Ralph Nader before, but he certainly knows how politics works. In Unstoppable, he tells us that there are people who share the similar values in both political wings, and there’s plenty of room to work together against what he calls the crony-capitalist state, the nemesis of both progressives who fear the power of modern-day robber barons, and of libertarians and conservatives who value free markets, the rule of law, and civic order.
For me, it’s a dense read for anyone not that savvy on the in-depth machinations of the political system and feels like more of a reference that gets kept handy on the shelf.
For me, it’s a dense read for anyone not that savvy on the in-depth machinations of the political system and feels like more of a reference that gets kept handy on the shelf.
June 23, 2017
Great work, Ralph delivers plain English facts, stories and anecdotes to engage the reader. The Thomas Paine of our time. Must read
July 13, 2017
though it sure looks today like the right an left are far away and apart.... the needs and dreams of people are the same, as is our foe, the corporate state. encouraging.
July 1, 2023
A great book with many historical convergences of left-right politics. I highly recommend it to anyone looking for some grass roots principled bipartisanship in our current political divide.
January 22, 2017
Just a list of nice ideas, and Nader explaining them instead of how to bring them to be.
July 27, 2015
In his latest book, Nader points out how powerful coalitions between Democrats and Republicans have been in the past, and could be in the future. They could accomplish important goals today that may be impossible without such a coalition. These are not divisive issues, but ideas that most all citizens desire: Eliminate most corporate welfare and bailouts, break up "too big to fail" banks, protect children from commercialism, end corporate personhood, oppose patenting of lifeforms, get tough on corporate crime, etc. These are the tasks for our times. I wish every politician, every wealthy person, and every voter would read this book.
February 27, 2016
UNSTOPPABLE might catch readers off guard with how much it feels like an activist's handbook, but Nader's m.o. is to galvanize disgruntled citizens to action, not philosophy. It's all pragmatic and motivating, with healthy doses of historical examples of when left-right convergence was necessary and successful. If you're halfway out the door to organizing like-minded people for positive change in the world, or even your local community, UNSTOPPABLE will light a fire under you.
June 5, 2016
Nader's idea is so compelling that one can overlook the slightly clunky style:
Corporations are neither conservative nor liberal, but work to undermine both sets of values. And that left and right (not so far apart as they might have thought) can and have combined to put an end to unconstitutional corporate rule.
Corporations are neither conservative nor liberal, but work to undermine both sets of values. And that left and right (not so far apart as they might have thought) can and have combined to put an end to unconstitutional corporate rule.
November 5, 2015
Nader's newest book is intriguing. It seeks to find topics on which the left and right can agree and make progress. Some of them like climate change, seem to be beyond Americans limited capabilities to understand. Others like prison reform, might have a chance.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.