Editor’s note: This article contains excerpts from an opinion article that appeared in the Harvard Crimson Oct. 31.Editorial Staff
Harvard Crimson

(U-WIRE) CAMBRIDGE, MASS. – Our next president will face a seemingly overwhelming deluge of problems: two wars on the ground, an economy mired in recession and a nation whose image has been tarnished, both at home and overseas. Getting America back on its feet will be a monumental challenge.
Of all the disastrous legacies of the Bush Administration, perhaps the most disturbing is the profoundly anti-intellectual bent to its governing style. The Bush presidency has been marked by a willful disdain for the importance of ideas and knowledge. Flying “by the seat of one’s pants” may be an acceptable tactic for fighter pilots, but it should never be the modus operandi of our chief executive.
In our search for the antidote to the eight poisonous years of the Bush administration, we looked carefully at the voting records, decisions and speeches of both major party candidates. We considered their policy proposals and their campaign conduct. But most importantly, we considered whether they would have that essential respect for the intellectual heavy lifting of competent governance.
With these factors in mind, we wholeheartedly endorse Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois for president. Unlike Bush, Obama is a man who has profound respect for ideas, facts and knowledge. As a state senator, U.S. senator and presidential candidate, he has proven himself more than willing to surround himself with experts and engage with them.
We believe that Obama has a comprehensive plan to put America back on its feet and restore our nation’s reputation. We are also impressed with his selection of Sen. Joe Biden as a running mate; we believe that the combination of Biden’s foreign policy experience and Obama’s expertise on domestic issues will prove a potent combination in the White House. This will be especially crucial considering that Democrats are very likely to expand their majorities in the House and the Senate come November.
By contrast, we have been less than enthused by the Republican ticket this year.
Although we respect and honor Sen. John McCain’s long record of public service, including his service in the Navy and in the Senate, we cannot help but question his judgment in selecting his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska. Palin’s nomination has been controversial, and while we understand her appeal to a limited slice of the electorate, we do not believe that she is prepared for the nation’s second-highest office.
For the vast majority of Americans, McCain’s economic agenda, which will make the Bush tax cuts permanent and continue the discredited trickle-down policies of the past eight years, is unlikely to mitigate the pain of a very real recession.
Obama’s plan, on the other hand, correctly assesses that the best way to help American families is to give tax relief to the middle and lower classes, whose spending will help to stimulate the national economy during the current downturn. It is true that some Americans – those making over $250,000 a year – will see their tax rates return to those of the Clinton era, but such an increase in taxation is justifiable, since the additional revenue will be used to repair the disastrous legacies of the Bush Administration.
Obama’s plan is not perfect. We are concerned about his support for agricultural subsidies, which distort the global market for food and prevent developing countries from being able to earn foreign exchange.
His lukewarm stance on free trade – including a vague promise to “renegotiate” NAFTA and his refusal to support free trade agreements with important allies like South Korea – is also a cause for concern. But compared to the economic plan of his rival, a self-proclaimed “footsoldier in the Reagan Revoluti on,” Obama’s plan is by far the better.

Author