I part company, however, with some Nader supporters, on whether Nader could siphon off enough Democratic votes in key swing states to throw the presidential election to George W. Bush. A Bush victory would be a calamitous setback for the progressive ideals to which progressives have devoted much of our lives. I believe that would be too high a price to pay, especially for the most vulnerable members of our society and the millions of working Americans who cannot count on a Republican-led Congress to represent their interests.

I disagree with those who accuse Nader of embarking on a self-indulgent crusade or a wrecking-ball candidacy. By raising vital issues such as the domination of our politics by corporate money, increasing economic inequality, and the impact of our trade policies on global living standards, the environment and human rights, Ralph Nader has made an enormously valuable contribution to this campaign. These are issues that matter to working Americans.

I also share the indignation many progressives feel about the policy performance of the Democratic Party on key issues like trade and welfare policy. I have been more critical of the Clinton administration on these and other issues, I think, than any other Democratic senator. I believe that passage of so-called welfare reform was perhaps the most egregious betrayal of our party's principles.

But I recognize that there are sharp differences between Vice President Al Gore and Gov. George W. Bush -- differences that matter. Bush has done a good job of blurring those differences and presenting himself as a nonthreatening alternative. But what we know about his agenda should scare the dickens out of us.

The next president may fill as many as three vacancies on the Supreme Court, and Bush has said he would appoint justices in the mold of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. These appointments could have far-reaching implications for women's reproductive freedom, civil rights and the environment, among other things. This is not a minor consideration, to be acknowledged merely as an afterthought.

One thing we know about Bush is that his top legislative priority would be the privatization of Social Security. Social Security privatization is an obscenely expensive attack on the most successful antipoverty program in our country's history. It is unfortunate that Gore had to banish the phrase "risky scheme" from his vocabulary, because never has it been more appropriate.

Working families should also be concerned about Bush's $1.6 trillion tax cut, the bulk of whose benefits go to the wealthiest 1 percent of the population. As we learned from our experience in the 1980s, showering tax breaks on wealthy campaign contributors leaves fewer resources available for health care, child care, education, the environment and progressive tax relief for working families.

I am alarmed not only by the Bush campaign agenda, but also by the Republican congressional agenda that Bush would sign into law. I've worked in Congress day in and day out for the last 10 years, and I've seen what a tremendous difference vetoes and veto threats can make. If Democrats do not win back a majority in either house, you can bet that a Republican Congress will pass legislation to turn Medicare into a voucher program, undermine enforcement of environmental standards, do away with the 40-hour workweek, legalize sham unions, privatize enforcement of safety and health standards, and wage an all-out assault on the rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively. Progressives cannot be indifferent to the prospect of Republicans controlling all three branches of government.

With George W. Bush in the White House, a Republican Congress could pass so much harmful legislation in two years that we could spend the rest of our lifetimes trying to undo the damage. For anyone who has been engaged in the daily hard work of organizing, this is not something to look forward to. It would be much more productive to organize around forward-looking objectives than to waste time and effort making up lost ground.

Things do not have to get worse before they can get better. And if we allow things to get worse, they may just continue to get worse. In the meantime, the greatest sacrifices would be made by the most vulnerable among us. We cannot afford to maintain a safe intellectual distance from these unpleasant realities.

It would be a tragic irony if alienated Nader voters were to realize after this election that votes for Nader tipped the balance in Bush's favor, resulting in a politics anathema to their values. To cure the growing cynicism and alienation that is corroding our democracy, let us instead focus our energies on proving that politics can make a positive difference in people's lives.

Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., is a member of the U.S. Senate.

© Copyright 2000 Star Tribune

###