Mr. Nader's Misguided Crusade

[Seth Ackerman]

How invigorating!

---

New York Times
June 30, 2000

Editorial:
Mr. Nader's Misguided Crusade
		
Ralph Nader's long history of public service championing the causes of
consumers, the environment and economic justice automatically commands
respect. But in running for president as the nominee of the Green Party, he
is engaging in a self-indulgent exercise that will distract voters from the
clear-cut choice represented by the major party candidates, Vice President
Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush. His candidacy will be especially harmful
for Mr. Gore, the contender closest to Mr. Nader on the environment and
other issues. This political reality casts doubt on Mr. Nader's claim to be
driven by policy differences rather than ego. 
We are equally reluctant to see the main election choices clouded by the
spoiler candidacy of Patrick Buchanan on the Reform Party ticket, an effort
that seems likely to pull votes from both Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush. Of course,
both Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Nader have the right to run. But given the major
differences between the prospective Democratic and Republican nominees,
there is no driving logic for a third-party candidacy this year, and the
public deserves to see the major party candidates compete on an uncluttered
playing field. 
It is especially distressing to see Mr. Nader flirt with the spoiler role.
For years, few Americans have made a more cogent critique of the Washington
influence game and the abuses of corporate power. From his early attacks on
automobile safety records to his most recent advocacy of campaign finance
reform, he has elevated issues and sharpened Americans' awareness of flaws
in their political system. Mr. Nader acknowledges that on his traditional
issues, Mr. Gore would promise more progress than Mr. Bush. But because he
regards Mr. Gore as too much an incrementalist, Mr. Nader is saying in
effect that he would choose outright defeat for the Democrats over small
steps forward on those issues. That is a kind of irresponsibility that more
befits a Ross Perot than someone with Mr. Nader's record and professed
concerns. 
Mr. Nader may argue that he will force Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush to be more
sensitive to election fund-raising reform and environmental issues. But the
fact is that they have defined broad differences on these two issues without
his help. The main economic issue that divides Mr. Nader from the
major-party candidates is trade, and there, both Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush have
positions that are better for the wage-earning voters that Mr. Nader claims
to represent. For he and the Green Party are against all the recent trade
agreements, including American membership in the World Trade Organization. 
Mr. Nader clearly expects to use the trade issue to win votes from
disenchanted union members and other workers. But protectionism runs counter
to much of what Mr. Nader has fought for over the years. Foreign competition
has been a factor in forcing the automobile industry to become more
productive, fuel-efficient and profitable. There are also far more American
workers whose jobs depend on exports, and whose families are able to buy
less expensive goods imported from overseas, than there are those dislocated
by trade. 
No doubt the last seven years under Mr. Clinton have been trying for
liberals. Mr. Nader's opposition to the death penalty, his scathing critique
of Democratic Party fund-raising and his willingness to embrace unorthodox
positions like the gasoline tax may all have the effect of enlivening the
public debate. But the only realistic role he can play this year is to tilt
swing states like California in a conservative direction. 
Such an outcome would be contrary to the policy thrust of his career and add
an unbecoming chapter to his legacy as a conscience-driven crusader.