Back in June, we criticized Ralph Nader's presidential bid as a self-indulgent crusade that could gull some voters into thinking that there were no clear policy choices between Al Gore and George Bush. As the election nears, what once seemed a speculative threat has become a very real danger to the Gore campaign, with polls suggesting that Mr. Nader's meager share of the vote could nevertheless make the difference in eight states with 70 electoral votes. That is one reason Mr. Gore returned this week to places like Washington and Oregon. In these and other states that once seemed safe for the vice president, Mr. Nader is wooing liberals by arguing that both parties are captives of the same financial interests. He also appears to be hurting Mr. Gore with charges that he has betrayed his principles and promises on the environment.
We would regard Mr. Nader's willful prankishness as a disservice to the electorate no matter whose campaign he was hurting. The country deserves a clear up-or-down vote between Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore, who have waged a hard, substantive and clean campaign. Of course, voters who want to cast an ideological protest vote for Mr. Nader have a perfect right to do so. But more tactically minded voters should recognize that unlike Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore, Mr. Nader can fling charges and espouse positions without worrying about their impact on his chances of winning or even about having to govern on the basis of his promises.
For Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore, every adjustment in a position gains or costs votes. Mr. Nader has the luxury of taking free throws. In a recent interview with The Wall Street Journal he seemed almost excited by the idea that a Gore defeat could lead to a "progressive convulsion" — a leftward shift among Democrats away from the Clinton administration's centrist policies. Yet anyone who has followed the course of progressive politics over the last quarter- century knows that such a shift is a formula for defeat precisely because it does not reflect the mood of those voters inclined to support moderate or liberal candidates. The spectrum has shifted, and Mr. Nader cannot jerk it back by demolishing Democratic chances.
Mr. Nader's description of Mr. Gore's environmental record is particularly obtuse, for there is no area in which voters are being offered a clearer choice. Mr. Bush would explore for oil in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Mr. Gore would not. Mr. Gore would prohibit new roads and logging on more than 40 million acres of national forest, Mr. Bush would not. Mr. Gore holds open the option of tearing down four dams that threaten Snake River salmon runs, while Mr. Bush flatly opposes decommissioning. Mr. Gore favors the vigorous enforcement of clean air rules to reduce industrial pollutants, Mr. Bush favors a negotiated approach. Whichever side one favors, the Texas governor and the vice president offer as stark a choice on the environment as was ever put on view in a presidential contest.
Mr. Nader's other main complaint is that Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush are equally beholden to the special interests, and certainly the candidates and their parties have parallel histories in regard to seeking corporate contributions. But their approaches to systemic reform of the electoral system are very different. For example, Mr. Gore would eliminate all forms of soft money — corporate, labor and individual contributions — whereas Mr. Bush would allow the large individual contributions that have done so much to corrupt the system. Yet Mr. Nader acts as if the presidential election would have no impact on the future of campaign finance legislation. In so doing he deludes his followers, brightens Mr. Bush's prospects and dims his own legacy as a reformer. He calls his wrecking-ball candidacy a matter of principle, but it looks from here like ego run amok.