In recent weeks, world events have pushed the presidential campaigns out of the immediate public spotlight. Violence has resurfaced in the Middle East, and democratic reform seems promising in Yugoslavia. Environmental and health concerns have prompted the call for a multi-national response. Fueled by technologies that know no political borders, the economies of nations have become ever more intertwined.

Taken as a whole, such global events underscore the increasingly important presence of the United States within the global community. But, as Nov. 7 draws near, they also highlight a host of challenges that will confront our next president. Without Congress as a buffer, the president must handle global issues at the most intimate of levels. Such interaction requires a brand of leadership that can both bridge nation-states and acquiesce heads-of-state.

It is the presence of this leadership quality that most distinguishes the Democratic candidate from his Republican rival. And for this reason, we urge our peers to cast their vote for Al Gore '69.

When it comes to government experience and knowledge, Vice President Gore is, hands-down, the more qualified candidate. He has been in Washington since 1977 and spent a combined 16 years in the House and Senate before his two terms with the Clinton Administration. Through his "Reinventing Government" program, he was intimately involved with the functioning of all aspects of the executive branch. Texas Gov. George W. Bush, by contrast, is currently in the second term of his first elected office.

Bush has attempted to paint his distance from Washington as a sign that he will inject a fresh perspective into tired old bureaucracies. He has also indicated he will surround himself with top-notch advisers, one of which includes his running-mate, former Secretary of Defense Richard B. Cheney. But presidential leadership, more than anything else, must reside within the individual. During the debates, it became painfully clear that Bush lacked a minimal level of familiarity on many international issues. Consequently, the Texas governor seemed to confuse foreign affairs with military affairs.

Gore, on other hand, used his years in Congress to become an expert on a broad range of international issues. In 1989 he was intimately involved in bipartisan legislation to stop ballistic missile proliferation. In 1991 he broke with party members to support the Gulf War. But although Gore has proposed a more active military engagement in world affairs, he understands that a successful foreign policy must also include more intimate and subtle forms of diplomacy and negotiation.

Granted, leadership is more than just a lengthy resume or savvy know-how. And many are quick to point out that Bush possesses a great deal of "personal charm." But we warn voters that there is a distinct difference between "charm," which works well at cocktail parties, and "charisma," which works well in legislatures and foreign nations. Gore, who has been criticized for his clunky speaking style, is no stranger to the later. As vice president, he has had ample opportunity to deal with world leaders whose mere names might give Bush pause.

In this global age, presidential leadership requires more than a fresh outlook or a seasoned team of advisers. It requires a blend of experience, knowledge and charisma--qualities that Gore has exemplified throughout his thus-far impressive career in Washington.

The Money

When it comes to specific policy issues, Gore is also the better choice. Perhaps the most important domestic issues of this election year deal with taxes and social security.

Both candidates' tax plans have focused concern on middle-class and wealthy Americans rather than the poor, and neither plan contains an adequate proposal for general reform. But whereas Bush's plan shamelessly benefits the very wealthy, Gore's proposal supports a number of admirable programs. Gore has proposed to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit, a program that rewards the working poor and softens the blow of welfare reform. Furthermore, the Gore's plan won't blow a hole in the budget; the Bush plan would cause deficits even if the budget surpluses materializes as expected. Still, neither plan does enough to address the current tax loopholes that benefit wealthy individuals and corporations. Closing the loopholes, which should be the priority of the upcoming administration, would mean a tax break for the working poor rather than the Fortune 500.

On Social Security, Bush's large-scale reforms, which partially privatize the program, are fraught with hidden risks and dangers. Although the lure of high returns from private investing might seem attractive, such promises assume an unreasonably bullish market and do not account for obligations to our current retirees--essentially spending the same money twice. In fact, the best estimates of Bush's plan show that it would cause a 20-year period of Social Security bankruptcy. The recent volatility of the stock market should make voters wary of such drastic privatization. Not to mention the fact that Bush's social security plan, like much of his fiscal policy, is unattractive to lower-income individuals who currently would earn lower returns with private accounts.

Gore's plan, by contrast, is more modest, and would prolong the program through 2050 with general revenues. As a promising alternative to privatizing social security, Gore has argued in favor of a separate program that would match savings of lower- and middle-income Americans with tax credits.

Health Care

Disappointingly, neither candidate's plan will bring us to the ideal of universal health care access. But both plans will expand Medicare and increase seniors' access to prescription drugs. Although funded differently, both plans are similar in this respect. However, only Gore has expressed a commitment to target specifically uninsured children. Furthermore, although Bush has professed a commitment to a patient's bill of rights during the final presidential debate, his track record is dubious: In Texas, he refused to sign such a bill.

Civil Liberties and Social Values

The next president of the may have the opportunity to appoint up to five Supreme Court justices. Even a single appointment could upset the delicate balance that currently exists on the high court. Without a question, civil liberties and social values are at stake during this election. Gore has forcefully advocated women's abortion rights, even though it is a politically polarizing issue. His voting record indicates that he is a stalwart supporter for the rights of gays and minorities. Bush's conservative appointees, on the other hand, could mean an overturn of Roe vs. Wade. During the final presidential debate, Bush refused to define his cryptic term "affirmative access." Although we are discouraged by some of Gore's moderate and conservative stances on social issues, such as the death penalty, we are confident that the vice president will continue to protect a number of our core rights and values.

Campaign Finance Reform

The appeal of Sen. John S. McCain (R-Ariz.) and former Sen. Bill Bradley was their almost idealistic commitment to take special interests out of politics. As McCain has noted, without campaign finance reform, it is difficult to expect that a Congress beholden to special interests will enact any of the other necessary legislation that Americans support. Gore has vowed to make campaign finance reform a top priority and has said the McCain-Feingold would be the first piece of legislation passed under his administration. Bush has been thus far unwilling to make this commitment.

The Environment

Make no doubt about it, when it comes to environment, Gore has the clear edge. The author of the 1992 manifesto Earth in the Balance is an avid supporter of the Kyoto protocol--a 1997 commitment signed by over 100 countries to stem global emissions of greenhouse gases. By contrast, Bush's home state of Texas has the dubious distinction of having one of the worst environmental records in the nation. Gore has vowed to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil exploration and is committed to saving the everglades. Bush, by contrast, has presented unconvincing proposals that would give private industries limited incentives to clean up their act.

So far, Gore has played an important role in formulating an international response to the threat of global climate change. A recent report by the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that greenhouse gases are warming the world beyond our previous predictions. Whereas Bush played down this threat during the debates, Gore recognizes the urgency and can provide the leadership necessary for an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Picking Our Next Leader

Many students are weighing the choice between Gore and Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, including some who hope to cast a "tactical vote," if Gore seems far enough ahead in their state. Given the unreliability of poll numbers and the vagaries of voter turnout, we warn students from casting this kind of electoral protest. Not only does it seem clear that the Nader's potential votes may sway the election in a number of key states, but it is far better to vote for a major candidate than to support the pipe dream of an empowered Green party four years from now.

In the vice presidential race, we are also far more comfortable with the positions and voting record of the Democratic vice presidential candidate, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), than those of Cheney, who consistently espoused a far-right position while in Congress.

Finally, we must add with some sadness that among the four major presidential and vice-presidential candidates, there is to be found one Harvard man and three Yalies. On this fact alone, the choice for Gore is almost clear: Our nation should never settle for second best.