s the 2000 presidential election approaches, voters find themselves facing an interesting array of third party candidates. The most successful to date has been Ralph Nader, the Green Party nominee for president who portrays himself as a candidate who will fight against special interests.

Grouping both Democratic Party nominee Al Gore and Republican nominee George W. Bush into an amalgamated "politics-as-usual" category, Nader decries himself the only "alternative" available to the electorate.

Nader's image goes beyond that of a reformer, however. He is also the self-proclaimed defender of the American Left.

Nader has taken advantage of the media's incessant criticism of Gore's slightest missteps to siphon off those voters who would traditionally vote for Gore.

The Green Party approach, however, is dangerous. The presidential election is extremely tight, with most poll numbers reflecting a statistical dead heat between Gore and Bush.

In states where the race is close, voting for Nader instead of Gore could very easily swing the tide to Bush, allowing him to capture the White House.

The four to five percent of voters who claim that they will vote for Nader are, without a doubt, a credible threat to Al Gore's run for the presidency. Were Nader to defy all odds and somehow capture a state, it could happen that neither Gore nor Bush would possess a majority of votes in the electoral college.

In this case, the U.S. Constitution dictates that the selection of the next president would be tossed to the sitting House of Representatives, again making Bush victorious. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has summarized the situation succinctly but correctly: "A vote for Mr. Nader is a vote for Mr. Bush."

The majority of Nader supporters justify their actions by contending that a vote for Nader sends a clear message to the Democratic Party that it has alienated its base. Sadly, however, Nader takes a myopic view of not just the political landscape but also what is best for America.

Nader contends, for example, that the United States should withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). These two pacts were implemented under the stewardship of the Clinton-Gore administration and were supported by a sizeable number of both Democrats and Republicans.

While Nader's justifications for this platform are predominantly based on environmental and human rights concerns, the effects of his proposal would be right in line with the kinds inspired by Pat Buchanan's xenophobia, conservatism, and protectionism. Nader contends that America is offering "our democracy…for sale," but he is simply missing the boat.

Economic engagement with our trading partners not only strengthens America's economic position but also opens the floodgates for cooperation and contact, the mechanisms by which liberal reforms can seep into other countries.

Al Gore recognizes that economic interests are intricately tied to democratic and environmental ones and that we must pursue them in tandem.

Another issue is the environment, where Nader claims to represent the interests of clean air, fossil fuel reductions, and protection of public lands. The only problem is that Al Gore has spent the last quarter century putting these environmental items and others on the top of his agenda.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called Gore "the last, best hope" for the environment, and Time Magazine has labeled the Clinton administration the "most pro-environment in a generation."

The strength of Gore's work and legislation on the issues of global warming, clean air and water, and toxic waste cleanup reflects his deep personal commitment to the environment.

Lastly, with all due respect to Nader, his chances of reforming the way in which political activity is conducted are dismal. Ross Perot took a commanding‘.9% of the popular vote in ’92, yet his effect on the political landscape can be described as negligible at best.

Nader's cause is not any kind of national emergency but rather the alienation and frustration of citizens with "politics-as-usual", and this explains why a huge majority of Nader supporters are young idealists.

We can all respect Ralph Nader's crusade to fight against the special interests and to restore honesty to the political process. But his cavalier attitude toward electoral politics will betray his own cause.

With four Supreme Court justices likely to be appointed by the next president, a Gore White House is the only way to protect the liberal agenda.