'The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.'

George Bernard Shaw

I WAS sorely tempted to opt for Arsene Wenger or Bruce Springsteen but instead I've chosen someone who has been lionised and reviled. He has seen former allies turn on him, has been described as 'insane' and accused of having an overweening ego. But he's a man who also epitomises some of the asceticism of a Gandhi and the incorruptibility of a Mandela.

Like hundreds of thousands of people alive today, in a sense, I owe my life to Ralph Nader. Years ago, in order to avoid an overtaking car, I was forced to swerve off a country road. I dropped six feet into a field and rolled three times before coming to rest upside down. Had I not been wearing a seat belt I would probably have been killed. Had Ralph Nader not risked his career and reputation in a David and Goliath fight against the American automobile industry, there might not even have been a seat belt in my car.

Nader was only 25 years old when he began to snap at the heels of the auto autocrats. He was 31 when the devastating Unsafe at Any Speed (1965) brought it home to Americans that Motor City placed more emphasis on profits than on the safety of its customers. General Motors made the mistake of trying to discredit him in a risible sexual sting operation.

The 'honey pot' escapade failed miserably and the $400,000 he won when he sued for invasion of privacy was used to fund a whole series of campaigns which forced major safety concessions from the automobile industry (seat belts, airbags etc) and gave birth to a raft of Public Interest Research Groups.

Nader was joined in his advocacy by a horde of idealistic young people who were set the task of making consumerist nuisances of themselves. Someone with an ear for cadence and an eye for a headline called them Nader's Raiders. Based in Washington they sought to make government and business accountable to ordinary voters and consumers.

Nader's domestic Peace Corps contributed hugely to the passing of clean air, consumer product and occupational safety legislation in the 1970s as well as the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency. He also pioneered the original US Freedom of Information laws which have influenced similar legislation worldwide.

So why is he reviled? Well he is obviously not on the Christmas card list of corporate America. But to many, otherwise rational, Americans he is an egomaniac whose desire for personal celebrity lumbered them with eight years of George Bush.

Supporters of the Democratic party blame Nader for the loss of the 2000 presidential election. I've even heard some Democrats holding Nader responsible for the deaths of more than 3,500 American soldiers in Iraq. That sort of logic beggars belief.

Nader ran as the Green party presidential candidate in 2000 and managed, with great difficulty, to get on the ballot in all 50 states. He polled nearly 3% of the popular ballot. In Florida, Bush beat Gore by 543 votes, we know that because Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court said he did. It was enough to lose Gore the electoral college majority he needed to win. Since then second-guessing Democratic supporters have said that if Nader hadn't run Gore would have won comfortably.

The fact is that there were eight 'third party' candidates on the Florida ballot and if any of them had not run and if all their votes had gone to Gore he would have won the state and the presidency. Even the Socialist Workers' party candidate, who finished last, got 562 votes. Can you see many of those butterfly ballots going to George Bush?

Nader ran in the first place because he saw (and still sees) the two main parties in thrall to corporate America. He saw Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dumber.

The Democratic party excoriated Nader for their loss rather than blaming the lousy performance of a candidate, Al Gore, who couldn't even carry his home state. Al Gore has only become the Greatest President America Never Had since 2000.

Nader has his faults. He places too much faith in polarisation causing the sort of discontent that will bring change. He supported Reagan over Carter in 1980 on the basis that the former's extremism would "breed the biggest resurgence in nonpartisan citizen activism in history."

That is the logic of Leninism. He's also been critical of poor little Sesame Street.

But that was on the basis of the children's show accepting sponsorship from McDonalds.

He doesn't always get it right. He made his point by campaigning vigorously in the 2000 election (probably assuming Gore couldn't lose). After four years of Bush/Cheney and Rove he didn't need to repeat the process in 2004.

But clearly as he enters the final quarter of his life he prefers big defeats to small victories.

The GBS quote at the top of this piece (used in the title of an excellent documentary film about his life and career) is apt. While I don't always agree with what he does, long may he continue to be unreasonable.

Myles Dungan presents Highway 101, an interview series, at 9.10am on Saturday mornings on RTE Radio One. 'How the Irish Won the West' by Myles Dungan is out in paperback