Senator Edward M. Kennedy ‘54’s abrupt exit from the 1984 presidential sweepstakes provides a welcome opportunity for the Democratic Party and its White House aspirants. Free from the looming Kennedy shadow, the Democrats can now think creatively about their agenda for 1984 and beyond.

The Massachusetts senator, to his credit, has been one of the few liberal bulwarks against the cruel incursions of Reaganism over the past two years. Were it not for Kennedy’s loud and visible opposition, the President’s attempts to roll back some sensible and compassionate social programs might have met with even more success.

Yet Kennedy’s political platform has often seemed more suited to the Great Society of the 1960s than to the more fiscally tight 1980s. Along with Bay State congressional colleague Tip O’Neill, Kennedy has increasingly been seen as a caricature of the decline of 1960s urban liberalism, a vestigial proponent of an outdated philosophy. Exit polls during last month’s midterm elections illustrated this perception: they showed President Reagan comfortably ahead of Kennedy and of fellow old-style liberal Walter F. Mondale. Voters apparently doubted—with reason—whether the two Democratic frontrunners had any fresh alternatives to Reaganomics, believing the two men intended simply to continue throwing money at the nation’s problems.

Kennedy’s withdrawal clears the way for bolder Democrats to seek the party’s nomination without incurring the wrath of devoted fans of his brothers’ Camelot. On the two broad issues, creative Democratic alternatives—to the knee-jerk liberalism of Kennedy as well as to the simplistic atavism of Reagan—seem particularly key.

Defense spending has long been a bete noire for the Democrats, and only recently have party leaders—including some presidential hopefuls—begun seriously backing plans for heightened military expenditures. It is time for Democrats to realize that their longtime blanket opposition to costly military programs has been misguided—and that there is a viable middle ground between the minimalist defense posture of Kennedy and the indiscriminate military spending of the current Administration.

On the domestic front, the party must inject a greater degree of fiscal responsibility into existing social programs. It should not immediately bridle at calls to reassess existing entitlement funding, as the Kennedy wing has so often done.

An initiative to ease the looming crisis over Social Security—where the Republicans have abdicated all responsibility, resorting instead to mere sloganeering—would be particularly welcome.

The Democratic Party remains the best hope for those who long for an America that tends to its needy and that does not subordinate social progress to militarism or deceptively aristocratic economic policies. Kennedy’s withdrawal should allow the party’s new leaders to fashion creative and timely policies to meet the challenge of those ideals, which remain every bit as noble as ever.