Vote John Kerry for President

During the 2000 presidential election, then billed as one of the most important elections in decades, the nation had to decide which candidate it wanted to spend a large budget surplus and appoint new justices to an aging Supreme Court. Four years later, the choice facing American voters is much more complicated. The budget issues sill loom large, and the Supreme Court, unaltered in its membership, is only getting older. But now the United States has a war on terror to fight and an international reputation to recover. In a world Americans now know is hostile and dangerous, and in a country sliding into economic and ideological polarization, there is only one man on the ticket we trust to make sensible decisions in the face of uncertainty: John F. Kerry.

In the past four years, President George W. Bush has spewed forth a torrent of abominable policy, nearly all of it adversely affecting the college-aged generation. The most visibly dangerous policy for young Americans is the ever-rising death toll in an unnecessary war in Iraq. But we are also concerned that younger generations will not receive the benefits of social security and Medicare, and we worry that the spiraling national debt will substantially increase their tax burden. We take issue with Bush’s mortgaging of the environment in deference to corporate interests. And based on Bush’s nominees for federal appeals courts, we shudder to think how Bush’s Supreme Court nominees would alter the social landscape of this country—starting with a repeal of Roe v. Wade—for the decades to come.

It is time for a change.

While it is tempting to frame Kerry’s candidacy entirely in terms diametric to the four years of Bush’s presidency, we support Kerry for many more reasons than that he is not Bush. Twenty years of Senate experience and the last year of campaigning have shown us that Kerry’s platform—and his willingness to carefully consider and reconsider all its planks—makes him an excellent choice for president.

Although Kerry’s senate record has been much maligned by Bush and his surrogates, who have called it liberal and unaccomplished, we find his senate accomplishments to be admirable and often understated. Much of Kerry’s most significant progress in the Senate has come anonymously, because many of his greatest achievements have not been bills with his name on them.

A hit parade of Kerry’s senate experience reads something like this: In 1994, Kerry was instrumental in finding the funds to put 100,000 police officers on the streets. In 1995, Kerry threw up legislative roadblocks to Republican attempts to undo much of the Clean Air Act. In 2000, Kerry co-wrote the legislation in a spending bill that provided funding for early childhood after-school programs, health care and parent education. In 2002, Kerry was one of the leading opponents against Bush’s plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The list goes on. If Kerry’s Senate record is liberal, then he has given liberal politics a better name.

Furthermore, Kerry has shown a willingness to reconsider important legislation if he later finds compelling evidence against his original position. He voted for the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq, but after witnessing the enforcement of the former and the execution of the latter, he sensibly requalified his positions on both. Republicans call this “flip-flopping.” We see his ability to reassess past decisions as a substantial and important personal characteristic.

Kerry’s experiences both during and after the Vietnam War add to an already impressive resumé. As a veteran who fought bravely in Vietnam, Kerry carries a better understanding of the concerns and needs of America’s armed forces. He showed spectacular courage not only in battle but also after returning home: his testimony before Congress stands as a timeless reminder of the horror of military conflict and the consequences of waging an ill-conceived war.

His experience in Vietnam undoubtedly shapes his policies today. Kerry’s plans to fight terrorism and protect the United States are more logical, use government funds more efficiently and respect the dignity of human life far more than the policies President Bush has pursued. Kerry’s proposals to increase inspections of air shipments and sea cargo and to protect sensitive domestic targets—such as chemical plants sorely in need of added defense—show his keen awareness of America’s vulnerabilities. Finally, Kerry has identified the presence of idle nuclear stockpiles and foreign energy dependence as two major long-term threats to the security of the United States, and we trust that addressing these two basic problems will, in the long run, do more for the security of the United States than the deposition of Saddam Hussein.

The royal mess in Iraq will be a challenge for any president to clean up. After the horrific damage—in terms of infrastructure and human lives—the war has inflicted, we have reservations about the prospect for quick stabilization in the region. But Kerry’s plan to begin to turn chaos into order is, at the very least, a reasonable start. The internationalization of the burden is a necessary step that the Bush administration should have taken long ago, and we hope that efforts to train Iraqi security forces will be more whole-hearted than the current lethargic efforts. The net result of both policies is a decreased U.S. military presence in the region, which will benefit both our global reputation and our national pocketbook.

But it has been more than just the Iraq war that has abused the federal budget for the past four years; the enormous tax cuts for the wealthiest in this country have sent budget deficits to record highs. Kerry’s sensible tax cuts for the middle class and rollback of the tax cuts for the top 2 percent of income earners will help to relieve the growing financial pressures on working families and set the nation back on the course of financial solvency.

These changes will also allow Congress to extend health care to millions more Americans and to begin to restore other social services that have been needlessly cut in the past four years. In order to both reign in the federal budget deficit and maintain any pretense of equality of opportunity in this country, we must maintain the system of progressive taxes and social services that has served us so well in years past.

In a political climate that has witnessed an anti-progressive backlash in recent years, it is refreshing to find a candidate that has taken reasoned, progressive stances on controversial social issues. Kerry’s politically risky support for same-sex civil unions is admirable, and we applaud his defense of homosexual rights in the recent presidential debates.

Kerry has offered unflinching support for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, which has the potential to cure a wide range of the most debilitating human diseases. The question, as Kerry has correctly recognized, is not when life begins, but rather how to best alleviate the pain and suffering of individuals who are already living.

We are especially impressed that Kerry seems willing to break with personal beliefs on certain social matters in order to serve the good of the nation. What Kerry thinks about stem cell research or gay marriage or abortions after he leaves the Oval Office for the evening does not concern us; the only thing that matters is what he signs while he’s there. In a Kerry presidency, the driving force behind policy decisions will be his concern for what is best and what is right, not his private religious beliefs.

This notion of two Kerrys—a private Kerry and a public Kerry—clearly worries many Americans. But what worries us instead is the notion of “two Americas,” as Kerry’s running mate Senator John Edwards spoke of in the primary campaign. “One America that is struggling to get by, another America that can buy anything it wants,” Edwards said. Indeed, it is unacceptable for one America to lose hundreds of thousands of jobs in four years while the other America benefits from tax breaks and corporate loopholes. Not only do we see great disparities between the “haves” and the “have-nots” in this country, we see a great disparity in the competing visions of the two presidential candidates.

Four years ago, President Bush campaigned under the mantra of being a uniter, not a divider, but his presidency has not come close to reflecting this ideal. We expect that a second Bush administration would continue to pursue policies of regressive taxing, continue to cut social services and continue to use the economic have-nots as tools to fight the wars of the political haves. Kerry’s record, meanwhile, indicates that a President Kerry would fight for a federal budget that provides more social services to all at the expense of only the uppermost echelons of society, bridge the two Americas and reforge a global system based on international discussion, cooperation and problem solving, not unilateralism.

Unlike in 2000, more is at stake than just the federal judgment and judicial appointments. This election is the most important the college-aged generation has ever faced, and the choice could not be starker. In his time in the Senate and on the campaign trail, Kerry has proved himself to be a skillful leader with rational plans and insightful goals. We enthusiastically endorse John F. Kerry for president of the United States.