Super Tuesday: With John Kerry being expected to accomplish a LOTR sort sweep, I did my civic duty ... voted for Sen. Edwards. I went to the nearby public school qua polling place, signed my name, and went into that nostalgic connection to the past -- the manual lever polling machine. I noticed something a bit unexpected -- you checked individual delegates (two of Sen. Edwards' delegates are local public officials of mine, not that I got anything in the mail or anything from their offices to vote for the guy ... excuse me? a bit more effort please). For state elections, we in NY get useful booklets on the candidates with a discussion on the voting process itself. I think the same should be the case for presidential elections, including in local papers. It is a shame how we still don't make it as easy and understandable as it could be, and truly do our best to promote basic aspects of citizenship.

Talking about my candidate, David Brooks criticizes Sen. Edwards for talking about poverty the wrong way ... Brooks wants the focus to be on values, not jobs or money. [Toss in some welfare bashing and the implication the poor are so much better now under welfare reform.] This is interesting in a nation whose founders felt the two were deeply intertwined. The reason why those without property could not be trusted with the vote, the argument went, was that they had nothing to defend, so would not have the virtue needed to be independent citizens. As usual, they had a point.

You can talk all about values, and surely it is an important subject that Democrats too often are loath to discuss, but surely having a good job, education (another thing the Democrats focus on), and so forth are essential in building an ethos that furthers such values. And, Edwards not only talks about how he was an American success story (by working hard, studying, and believing in himself), but talks about how voters will trust a person like him ... the "values of a small Southern mill town" subtext is apparent. I'd take this over the AWOL "compassionate conservative" of President Bush that Brooks almost amusingly pines over.

---

Haiti: Not too long ago, I saw a very good documentary about the attempted coup against President Chavez of Venezuela, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The Bush Administration right away supported the rebels, even though Chavez was democratically elected, and the coup was clearly illegal. The situation was less messy than in Haiti, but somewhat similar, in that the society was deeply divided with Chavez having much support among the poor. On the other hand, he was very controversial, and ruled with a heavy hand that resulted in some justified criticism. He now is ridiculing the President of the United States as an unelected official, one that he will outlast. Given past events, I don't think we can blame the guy.

The U.S. looked pretty bad, for those who paid attention to what to most amounted to a sideshow (though Venezuela's oil and more stable society made it harder to just write it off as another Third World basket case), and the same applies to Haiti. Again, we supported the rebels, again we seemed to ignore that a democratically elected official was being chased out of office by violent means. What message does this send?

Also, we too have a greatly divided nation with a President who came into office under a cloud, and one who many strongly oppose. So, we have a chance, if not an obligation, to show that there is another way besides violence and coups. The fact we aren't dealing with angels is besides the point ... such is how things work in the real world. The important thing is the process ... and looking the other way as Aristide is chased out of his own country while thugs benefit is not the process I'd hope this country would want to be seen to support.

[After I first wrote this, I read a pessimistic view of the current situation as reported by the NYT. Simply put: those in control are not the democratically elected government or those next in the line of succession once the President resigns, but "men with guns." Or rather, those who used them in the past to reap disorder and terror. The more things change ...]