THE NADER QUESTION

It is too early to tell if consumer advocate Ralph Nader’s entrance into the presidential race is better for conservatives or liberals. It does, however, raise some important questions. His electoral votes in 2000 were more than enough to tip Florida and New Hampshire from Al Gore to George W. Bush and switch the race’s outcome. This time, however, Nader’s impact is likely to be smaller. His appeal seems to have lost some of its luster, he has no party backing and President Bush’s policies now are much clearer than they were when just compassionate conservatism was his mantra.

For liberals, it’s not important to know whether Mr. Nader is guided by conviction or egotism. One guess is as good as another. He may not know himself. The real question is: What do you do if you agree with most of the things he says? And, if he gets on the ballot and you vote for him, what will be the consequence? Sending a message would be one motive, although one of dubious effect, as it was last time.

Aside from the Nader candidacy, the coming campaign promises a clear choice on some big issues: Was it wise to invade Iraq on the basis of flimsy or distorted intelligence, or should the United States have relied on international inspection and control? Should the United States stay in Iraq indefinitely, keeping it as a military base and a source for oil, or should it get out as soon as possible and leave Iraq to the Iraqis? Should the huge Bush tax cuts that benefit mostly the rich, voted in at a time of enormous budget surplus, be made permanent, or should they be cut back, in this time of deficits, program cuts, and increasing national debt? Should environmental improvement continue to be cut back as an impediment to business growth, or should clean air and water, preservation of forests, and reduced gasoline mileage in cars again be major goals? Should the No Child Left Behind Act be kept as it is, or should funding to states be increased or federal standards be abandoned? Should federal judges be “pro-life” or “pro-choice”? And so on.

A vote for Nader means avoiding the option provided by the coming election. It means, in effect, deciding all these issues without making a judgment between the two major-party nominees on the basis of their platforms, their principles and their records.