Ralph Nader

* Re “Why I Won’t Vote for Clinton,” Commentary, July 22:

David Brower thinks that President Clinton has done more damage to the environment than Presidents Reagan and Bush combined. I, too, am a member of the Sierra Club, and while I have not been thrilled at what has happened over the past few years, I also realize how much worse it could have been. Given the economic and political climate, President Clinton has done reasonably well at damage control. Reagan and Bush would certainly have done much more harm if they hadn’t had a Democratic Congress to deal with.

According to Brower, Ralph Nader understands the need to “rein in . . . multinational corporations.” How this can be accomplished is an even deeper and darker secret than the implementation of Ross Perot’s plans, since Nader does not intend to campaign. Supporting an idealist like Nader would be fine in an ideal world. Unfortunately, in our real world such support is more likely to split the vote the wrong way. How well will the environment do then?

ANNE JOHNSON

Long Beach

* I share Brower’s disappointment in President Clinton’s environmental record. Not mentioned in Brower’s column is the Clinton administration’s benevolence toward the massive Playa Vista development, which will be built on the Ballona Wetlands. Steven Spielberg and David Geffen intend to build their DreamWorks SKG studio at that site. It is no coincidence that when President Clinton is in Los Angeles, he routinely attends lavish fund-raisers hosted by Spielberg and Geffen.

I am voting for Nader because I believe he is the only presidential candidate who will not allow our precious wetlands to be destroyed.

FRANCES LONGMIRE

Los Angeles

* Disagreement with the sainted Brower is not easy. He’s been right on so many issues and for so long. But he’s dead wrong on this one.

A vote for Nader is, indisputably, a vote for Bob Dole. For a large variety of reasons, most of which Brower would agree with, that is simply absurd.

STANLEY HART