Tuesday the American electorats will go to the polls for what may be the most crucial Presidential election of this century. The next President faces an immense load of unsolved international and domestic problems, and upon the way be handles these problems rest the future of this country as a free society and the future of the world as a free and peaceful planet. Because, unlike his opponent, he has demonstrated an understanding of the challenges and dangers of the Sixties; because, unlike his opponent, he has emphasized the courage and sacrifice necessary to meet those challenges; and because, unlike his opponent, he has given promise of initiative and constructive action, the CRIMSON strongly endorses Senator John F. Kennedy for President of the United States.

Those who say that this election affords little real choice are making a grave mistake. The choice is a real and important one, and for those who find much to disturb them both home and abroad, it is an obvious one.

The choice is, as Senator Kennedy has said, between two philosophies of government, if non-government can be called a philosophy. The Republicans offer a government that speaks only when spoken to; whose method of operation is that of reaction to stimuli; whose policy toward strangers is to set up a Neighborhood Protection Association; whose policy toward enemies is to slap and howl when stung and to exchange insult for insult; whose policy at home is to throw the dogs a crumb when their barking becomes too loud. The Democrats, on the other hand, offer the promise of systematic programs to meet the needs that eight years of non-government have neglected.

In foreign policy, there is a need for something more than reaction to Soviet stimuli, more than an American slap for every Russian slap, and more than ineffective crash programs when the State Department finally sees trouble coming in an underdeveloped country. The new President must offer substantive policy rather than the swift rebuttal, a constant flow of economic aid rather than swift bursts when an irresponsible leader starts veering to the Left.

Diplomatic Adjustment

The new President must, as W. W. Rostow has said, learn to view the Russians both as rivals and as fellow citizens of the planet; he must enter arms control negotiations not already convinced of their futility, but rather convinced of their necessity. He must see the United Nations not as a world debating society, but as a useful instrument for resolution of conflict. He must realize, and make the American people accept, the fact that the leaders of new nations can in good conscience find little profit in military alliance on either side of the cold war; he must not view neutralist flirtation with the Soviets as the first step to satellite status.

In short, the new President must make the long over-due adjustment to a world of thermo-nuclear weapons and emerging nations, and must apply American understanding and initiative to the problems of this different world.

Senator Kennedy and the men around him, through their platform and their public utterances, give hope--in fact, reasonable expectation--that these adjustments can be made that the United States can have a foreign policy other than shouting "Black!" when the Soviets shout "White!", that diplomatic initiative can be recaptured in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Mr. Nixon by contrast, can offer nothing but limp defenses of Eisenhower mistakes, extravagant postures ("We shall not yield an inch of the area of freedom") and misleading claims ("There were eleven dictators in Latin America when we came in; now there are only three. . . . I call that progress.").

The saddest event of the Eisenhower years has been the decline of the America of Point Four, Korea and the Marshall Plan, into the vague, insubstantial good will of a traveling man from the White House. The time has come to put meaning back into that good will, and substance into the idea of an "area of freedom." Senator Kennedy has the understanding and intelligence to do just this, to meet the challenge of Soviet efforts and pressing world problems with genuine programs based on this country's real stake in the peace and stability of the world.

Domestic Weaknesses

If America's image has become tarnished in world opinion, the reality behind that image has decayed at home. On the surface, the Eisenhower years have been prosperous ones, and no doubt life on the upper levels of American society is as comfortable as it has ever been. Yet these facts remain, much as Mr. Nixon would like to hide them:

Millions of Americans (it doesn't matter whether it is 10 or 15 or 20 millions) "go to bed hungry every night," while the farm surplus continues to grow.

Despite the efforts of a few mayors, most major cities are losing the battle against the slum problem, with Federal aid spotty and almost wholly inadequate.

Children all over the country go to school on double sessions; the teacher shortage is great and likely to become greater; a college education remains financially inaccessible to many qualified students. "Poor schools," as J. K. Galbraith says, "are, after all, cheap."

Many of the nation's aged must turn to charity--public or private--to pay for their medical needs; the country is not training enough doctors for projected future requirements.