The tin man vs. the straw man. The candidate with a brain but without a heart against the president with a heart but without a brain. That's how many Latin Americans are viewing the race between John Kerry and George W. Bush. Even from afar, people perceive the forthcoming US election as a contest between two contending world views, two opposite visions, two ways of viewing reality and dealing with it. Kerry represents reason and Bush faith. Kerry embodies rationality and Bush morality. Kerry understands the real world, while Bush lives in one of his own making.

South of the US border, many countries perceive that Kerry embraces multilateralism, while Bush rejects it. Kerry refers to terrorism as a problem that should be contained, while Bush views it as an epic war that must be won. Kerry speaks of friends and allies, while Bush alienates many of them. As a result, for Latin Americans the choice has never been as clear-cut. Across the hemisphere, citizens from Buenos Aires to Brasilia and from San Salvador to Santiago de Chile know that Bush means more of the same, while Kerry offers the possibility of a different course.

More of the same in US-Latin American relations would mean four more years of "the war on terror" at center stage, four more years of pressing issues - trade, poverty, the environment, immigration - placed on the back burner, and four more years of an American foreign policy that defines friendship in terms of the number of troops sent to Iraq. Latin Americans have been there and done that. The results have not been pretty. While bombs drop over Baghdad, instability grows in Bogotá. While "freedom is on the march" in Afghanistan, poverty marches on in the Andes. While the Middle East burns, Latin America simmers.

So Latin Americans believe that Bush must go. They view him as a man who trusts his instincts more than empirical evidence, who prays as a way of making policy, who doesn't recognize his mistakes in Iraq, and who listens to his inner voice instead of to what other countries have to say. Latin Americans recoil from Bush's faith-based presidency because it has meant thousands dead and wounded in Iraq, a more polarized world, and a hemisphere neglected. As a result, many Latin Americans view Bush with panic, fear, and growing antipathy. They view him as a menace, not a salvation.

Although Kerry may not fill them with enthusiasm, Latin Americans perceive him as a necessary replacement. Across the continent, millions believe that Kerry is right about Bush. As the senator has put it: "It is possible to be certain and to be wrong." It is possible to have a vision and for that vision to be distorted. Throughout Latin America, no one doubts that Bush believes what he says and acts according to what he believes. He has done so with determination, with force, without doubts, without second guesses. Since September 11, 2001, the American President has remodeled the international stage and his country's role in it. He has transformed the war on terror into the guiding force of US foreign policy. He intends to win reelection by presenting himself as the only leader who can keep America safe.

But the majority of Latin Americans believe - as Kerry does - that terrorism can be addressed in a better way. They perceive that the US has not won the peace in Iraq and will need international collaboration to achieve that goal. They don't want a president who speaks to God, but one who engages the world. They don't want a president who says that freedom is on the march, and then sabotages it in Abu Ghraib. They want an American leader who asks questions, who faces facts, who changes tactics when it becomes necessary to do so. And although John Kerry isn't the most charismatic of candidates or the savviest politician, he represents the possibility of removing George Bush from the White House. Although Kerry doesn't have a lot of options in Iraq, he represents the possibility of addressing the conflict in a new way.

For Latin America, a fresh start and a different tone would be enough, because a willingness to engage the world instead of shunning it would at least constitute progress. In the meantime, throughout the hemisphere, citizens are watching and waiting. They're wondering whether Americans will choose a reasonable leader over a faith-based president. They're questioning whether Americans will support a man rooted in reality over a man who constructs his own vision of it. They're hoping that reason and realism will return to the White House.