Let third-party presidential candidates Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader tell us what it is that sets them apart from Democratic candidate Al Gore and Republican candidate George W. Bush, but spare us the self-serving fantasy that there is no significant difference between Gore and Bush.
Maybe the Democrats and the Republicans should be pushed aside for many other reasons, but the differences between the two parties are considerable. They differ on most of the major issues of our time. They take opposing sides on taxation, abortion, civil rights, First Amendment liberties, foreign policy and environmental issues, among many others.
There are similarities, to be sure -- among all four of those candidates -- when it comes to sucking up to certain interests. They all do that. Even the once-pristine Nader now has little love meetings with the Teamsters union and snuggles up with the new protectionists of the left (those flip-side descendants of the old protectionists of the right).
Granted, most voters don't consider themselves lifelong Democrats or Republicans any more. But perhaps the truest test of whether American voters are totally independent today is the presidential race itself. Most voters today pick and choose among the parties on the lower parts of the ballot, often selecting the person over the party. But most voters still tend to vote far more often for the presidential candidate of one party than the presidential candidate of the other party.
That's because you may find the occasional Democratic senator or governor or county commissioner who is a conservative, anti-union, anti-feminist, anti-abortion, anti-environmentalist politician. And you may find the occasional Republican senator or governor or county commissioner who is fairly liberal, gets along with the unions, is a booster of women's right, supports abortion rights and backs stronger environmental laws.
But that isn't the norm. And it has been years since you have seen a presidential nominee of either major party go much against the grain on any of those issues. If Nader and Buchanan can't see any difference between the Democrats and Republicans or between Gore and Bush, most of the rest of us can.
Third parties generally serve best, not when they run around offering negative alternatives to the major parties but when they offer fresh, breakaway ideas. Socialist candidate Norman Thomas, for instance, never became president, but he is the one who popularized what became Social Security and Medicare, among many other programs now ingrained in American life. Third parties are at their best when they alone have the nerve to test new ideas on the electorate.
The injustice is that, if the idea catches on, the major parties quickly appropriate it. But third-party candidates have the satisfaction of seeing their most thoughtful ideas become part of American society.
Most of what Nader -- the anti-free trader -- and Buchanan -- the avenger from the far Catholic right -- stand for is negative.
That is not to say that Nader hasn't had a positive influence on the American consumer movement. He has. But that is yesterday's newspaper. Today, he seems more inclined to make the narrow little world of backward unions safe inside an American economic fortress.
Nader, like Buchanan, has become another predictable political hack posing as a saint. When it comes to positive influences on this election, there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Nader and Buchanan. -- B.H.