Beating Bush

When the class of 2004 first stepped into Tercentenary Theatre during Freshman Week, Bill Clinton was still in the White House, George W. Bush was just a conservative upstart governor from Texas and Al Gore ’69 hadn’t yet relegated himself to awkwardly bearded obscurity. What a difference four years makes. Tomorrow, the class of 2004 will leave the New Yard graduates of Harvard College with Bush presiding over a regime marked by landmark environmental deregulation, the frustrating conflict in Iraq and a crushing deficit, just to name a few of his more significant blunders. And he hasn’t even finished his first term.

But this fall, another presidential election will soon give the voters of this country a chance to rid the White House of the Bush clan for a second time. We hope they do.

When the primary season started in New Hampshire this year, The Crimson Staff endorsed distinguished war veteran and Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry in the year’s first major political contest. We were glad to see that the Democrats picked a leader of such caliber to take on the president and his henchmen in the general election. Despite what misleading Republican attack ads say, Kerry’s record on the war in Iraq, taxes, the environment, social security and health care is much more in line with mainstream America than Bush’s radical right-wing agenda disguised by the unconvincing veneer of “compassionate conservatism.” Indeed, nearly every poll taken indicates that, especially on domestic concerns, Kerry consistently beats out Bush on almost every issue of major importance to Americans. And Kerry’s already enviable legacy as a public servant—from the time he led Veterans Against the War to his long legislative career in the House and Senate—gives him a lifetime of experience that should set him in sharp relief to his opponent, whose driving ambition before he entered politics was to become baseball commissioner. (He failed.)

Yet a life filled with heroism, principled activism and legislative accomplishment will not be enough to beat Bush in November. Just as the polls indicate that Kerry is better on the issues than Bush, they also show that the two candidates are in a statistical dead heat and that, despite Bush’s falling numbers, Kerry is having trouble picking up the support of those recently disenchanted with the president. Bush’s special brand of down-home charisma and charm must be part of the reason, and it will be difficult for Kerry to battle a gut feeling most Americans have about the president, whom many voters continue to deem decisive and trustworthy. But Bush’s excellent campaign staff—including spin maestro Karl Rove and the likable Texas twang of Karen Hughes—is another big Bush asset. The president’s own Texas-tinted brain trust has already demonstrated its willingness to exploit the tragedy of September 11, 2001 in the campaign’s first round of ads, which prominently feature footage of the World Trade Center’s rubble. Bush may well manage to scare enough Americans into voting for him using these gut-wrenching images.

Even if Bush weren’t as formidable an opponent, Kerry still has to deal with the last election’s spoiler, Ralph Nader. Though Nader has promised to leave the race if it looks like he might swing it for Bush (and polling data indicates that he very well might), his mere entry into the campaign threatens to split the liberal vote. If he really wants to form a united front against the president, Nader should rally behind the one man who has a chance at beating Bush—John Kerry.

Despite all the difficulties, though, we believe that Kerry—who has proven himself an able campaigner, especially late in the race—can and should win in November. Because if Bush’s first term was bad, there’s no telling how ruinous a lame-duck second term could turn out to be.