The gubernatorial race offers the voters of Massachusetts an uninspiring choice. The Republican Party passed over an attractive and fiercely dedicated Attorney General in order to give another chance to an ex-Governor with little legislative imagination. Not to be outdone, the Democrats, by an internal logic inscrutable even to its friends, repudiated an honest and progressive, if uninspiring, Governor in favor of an opportunistic political neophyte. With such a choice, why choose? Why not, with justifiable pique, write in either Peabody or Brooke?

Why not? For one reason: A write-in vote is only a protest, and if protest could bring freshness to Massachusetts politics, the state would enjoy the most efficient and principled government in the nation. When the choice lies between evils of degree, the voter cannot afford to hobble his sense of discernment with disgust.

A standard for judging this race is not hard to find: how does each candidate interpret and propose to solve the crucial problems facing the next Governor? By consensus of most independent observers, those problems are (1) a crisis in governmental finances and in the state's economy in general and (2) governmental corruption. Volpe's record and public utterances reveal a concern for these issues and at least a halting attempt to meet them. His opponent, Francis X. Bellotti, has explicitly denied the existence of both problems, while his actions as Lieutenant-Governor have materially aggravated them.

The state's fiscal future is bleak if present economic policies are continued, a comprehensive survey by Boston College economists has demonstrated. Simply to retain present industry, Massachusetts must cut property taxes, the chief source of state revenue, by at least $3 million in the next decade. Yet, to finance projected state-wide educational and welfare needs, the government must gather at least $150 million in new revenue. If these funds are not found, the General Fund deficit will increase and the cities and towns, many already operating on dangerously unbalanced budgets, will near bankruptcy.

Though this survey and others by competent economists show the need for drastic fiscal reform, Bellotti's proposals are hardly adequate. He would "foster the tourist trade," which is a pleasant idea but certainly unequal to the crisis. He would "be on the spot in Washington" to corner for Massachusetts all possible Federal grants and programs, again a commendable proposal but one which Volpe put into practice nearly four years ago. Bellotti would establish a state Economic Research Council, a fine liberal proposal in itself, but one that sounds more like liberal cant when contrasted with his general apathy toward economic matters. Finally, Bellotti has great faith that future economic growth will fill the treasury's coffers without increased tax revenues. Regrettably, he fails to explain why industry will flock to a state with astronomical property taxes or how, if these now vital taxes are cut, the state will keep operating. For, under state law, a planned deficit is illegal.

In the past two years, the Lieutenant-Governor has sabotaged Governor Peabody's two attempts at tax reform. Working behind the scenes, Bellotti helped organize opposition to a proposed sales tax and to a larger and more progressive income tax. With these programs defeated, Peabody was justifiably reluctant to decrease appreciably the onerous land taxes.

Volpe has suggested three basic tax reforms to solve the fiscal crisis: a modest sales tax, a modified income tax, and an increase in governmental fees. Most attention in the press has centered on the sales tax, a proposal which may lose Volpe many votes. Advocacy of this tax says much for the ex-Governor's economic acumen and political courage. Though the sales tax falls more heavily on lower-income tax groups, it is generally recognized as the most effective means of raising tax revenues and has been advocated by many Democrats, Peabody and Mayor Collins among them. By proposing increased state income taxes, Volpe has sought to minimize the need for the regressive sales tax. Thus he proposes a compromise between fiscal realism and liberal idealism. If passed by the legislature, these reforms would permit Volpe to cut property taxes, thereby stimulating industrial expansion.

Some of the state's economic distress can be traced to the second great problem facing the next Governor: governmental dishonesty. No one knows for sure the extent of corruption in Massachusetts politics. The present indictments are not tantamount to convictions. But at the very least it is obvious that the state's complex and archaic constitution has created a structure peculiarly susceptible to backroom dealings and factional quarrels. Both the truth and the legend of corruption have aggravated the fiscal crisis. Within the Department of Public Works, proven kickbacks and bribes have in the past wasted valuable tax revenue. More importantly, the image of corruption has frightened many industries from the Commonwealth and has disgusted many capable men who might have otherwise pursued careers in government. As Volpe has noted, Massachusetts pays a huge "corruption tax."

There is good reason to hope that the ex-Governor, if elected, will repeal that tax. As Governor, he established the Crime Commission, which supplied evidence for the recent grand jury indictments. Volpe also secured an administrative Code of Ethics to curtail conflicts of interest. And he instituted the practice of subjecting each administrative agency to an independent audit.

His plans for the future are equally sound. Favoring constitutional reform, Volpe supports Referendum #5 on the November 3 ballot, a measure which would streamline the executive by stripping the Governor's Council of statutory powers. The Council, which now passes on all gubernatorial appointments, is a hurdle to firm executive leadership, and its ratifying function invites unethical pressures, both political and financial. Volpe also supports coterminous 4-year terms for the Governor and his agency heads. All these measures would limit opportunities for corruption by increasing the power of the Governor, who would be directly and solely

Bellotti, who once advocated constitutional reform, now responsible to the people for all administrative decisions, maintains a curious silence, saying only that he "could live with the Governor's Council." In his meteoric political rise, the Lieutenant Governor has apparently befriended many opponents of constitutional change. Such alliances may enhance the career of a candidate; they can only degrade the career of an elected official.

So Volpe, a formal supporter of Senator Goldwater's candidacy, has become the liberal's choice by default. As an overly ambitious Lieutenant-Governor, Bellotti did his best to defeat every progressive program put forward by his Governor. He opposed repealing capital punishment, reforming the tax structure, curbing the Governor's Council, and reorganizing the transit authority. What good Peabody did, he did without, and usually against, Bellotti's influence. The sheer opportunism of the Democratic candidate is astounding and inexcusable. Though he may secretly be a "gut liberal," the record does not justify electing him to find out.

Volpe's liberalism is strictly Republican and in some ways regrettably limited. For example, his fetishistic respect for home rule makes him oppose a state-wide minimum wage for teachers. However, when welfare measures do not conflict with home rule, he supports them with the vigor of a man who has known poverty intimately. And, on the prime issue of constitutional reform, the prerequisite of any liberal program, Volpe's position is impeccable.

His endorsement of Goldwater, though distasteful, is perhaps understandable from a leader of the state party. It is, in any case, a perfunctory endorsement, and Volpe readily repudiates the Senator's positions on civil rights, labor-management relations, nuclear responsibility, and most other issues. He fought diligently to deny Gold-water the nomination this year, and if elected, Volpe will do the same with better effect, in 1968.