WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2002 -- Attention state and national Republicans: today’s news offers the prospect of the return of a rare species in Massachusetts politics, Democrats for common sense. Later today, Senator John Kerry will announce his support for the Senate’s bi-partisan resolution in support of the use of force against Saddam Hussein of Iraq. In a move that should not be overshadowed by Kerry’s decision, Congressman Stephen Lynch of South Boston has also come out in support of the resolution as has House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt.

Last week, when it seemed the Massachusetts congressional delegation, lead by Senator Ted Kennedy, would vote overwhelmingly against the resolution, it looked like the same-old reflexively anti-war Commonwealth -- no matter the perils of the post September 11 world. Only the dean of the delegation, Congressman Ed Markey of Malden, who cut his teeth in defense of Israel’s strike against the Osirik nuclear power plant in 1981, was planning to vote for the resolution. Now we have two major Democrats coming around — each for his own reason.

First Kerry. When the news of Kerry’s vote gets around Washington, everybody will be sure to comment on how Kerry as a 2004 presidential aspirant had to vote that way. This is much too simplistic. While presidential ambitions certainly color Kerry’s actions, he has, since his vote against the original Gulf War in 1991, sought to take a middle course against Iraq. In repeated conversations with the Phoenix over the last two years, Kerry has expressed concern about Hussein’s potential development of weapons of mass destruction, concern colored with a need to work with the international community. Kerry demonstrated this same balance in the lead-up to his Iraq decision. His work -- both in penning a September 6 New York Times op-ed and in criticizing Bush’s plans at an appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball on October 1 -- moved Bush to be more accommodating to those urging increased public dialogue on Iraq. Still, for a political figure who came of age questioning American involvement in Vietnam, his decision is significant. A considerable number of the activists who comprise Kerry’s base -- especially here locally -- represent supporters who have been with him since he asked the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Despite the obvious differences between Vietnam in the 1960s and Iraq today -- particularly the danger posed to the US and our allies -- many won’t be happy with Kerry’s choice.

As for Lynch, the decision marks almost a year of exponential growth on the part of the South Boston congressman. A year ago Lynch was struggling to move beyond the confines of his home neighborhood to appeal to the suburbs. Now, for no other reason than his own judgment of the peril Iraq poses, Lynch has bucked the fellow members of his delegation. It’s almost impossible to imagine the man Lynch replaced, Congressman Joe Moakley, voting the same way on Iraq. (He didn’t in 1991.) Another Boston Democrat who represented part of the district Lynch now possesses, Congressman Brian Donnelly, cemented his national reputation by delivering an emotional address against the war.

But with his decision, Lynch, a former iron worker, reflects the best traditions of the American labor movement. Lynch stands with former AFL-CIO leaders such as George Meaney and Lane Kirkland. These were men who steadfastly worked to better conditions for working people in this country. At the same time they were hard-nosed opponents of the Soviets, whom they understood subjugated working people. The AFL was perhaps the most staunch supporter of Poland’s worker-democracy movement, Solidarity, and its leader Lech Walesa.

Opponents of the war resolution will surely point out that there is a need for at least some dissent on a decision sure to cost American and Iraqi lives. They are absolutely correct. Debate is needed. But it’s a good thing that here in Massachusetts we have dissenters from the dissenters.