Two more bits of national attention for Hawaii.
First, the New York Times: “Loss of Inouye Means Loss of Clout for Hawaii.”
Reporter Jeremy Peters goes through the standard tracing of earmarks that flowed to the islands during Inouye’s long tenure, but then he mentions the unmentionable issue of Hawaii’s political vs. strategic importance.
Mr. Inouye, who lost his right arm in combat during World War II, also persuaded the United States military to leave its bases in Hawaii open, even though the state is no longer as vital for strategic defense purposes. The Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force and Marine Corps all maintain installations here.
“There were several times that there was talk of Pearl Harbor being shut down, but he protected us from that,” said Jeanne Ishikawa, who attended a memorial service for Mr. Inouye on Oahu over the weekend. [emphasis added]
Then the Wall Street Journal laid out suggestions for a four-day visit to Honolulu (“Take Monday Off: Honolulu“).
Here’s writer Julia Flynn Siler’s capsule description emphasizing a local-haole conflict which, she says, “is never far from the surface.
Hawaii may seem like a tropical idyll, but its long history of conflict between locals and foreigners—who are known by the Hawaiian term “haole” (pronounced howl-eee)—is never far from the surface. Part Polynesian, part Asian, part military base, part honeymoon destination, Hawaii’s capital of Honolulu, located on the southeastern side of Oahu island, is arguably the most foreign of U.S. cities, as well as one of the loveliest.
Interesting.
Unfortunately, her Day 4 itinerary skips from Sunset Beach all the way to the Nuuanu Pali, without even a mention of Kaaawa, the Crouching Lion, Uncle Bobo’s, or the delights of nearby Kualoa Ranch.
Nor any mention of the rapid loss of the rural character of the area that will result if developments being proposed, including the expansion of Turtle Bay and the Mormon’s development of Malaekahana, are approved and go forward.
Since you mentioned Uncle Bobo’s, I assume it’s still open. I used to eat there at least once a week but haven’t been there for about a year. Someone told me that it had closed a few months ago. True?
“Is military spending vulnerable in post-Inouye Hawaii?”
YES!
Pearl Harbor is more than the shipyard. Am inclined to believe our “vitality” sufficient to hold on to our present role.
Everyone misses the best part of Oahu..I personally would like to live without the polluting military presence.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49200137/States_With_the_Most_Federal_Funding
Take a look at the CNBC story/listing of federal spending per capital by state. Hawaii is not listed as a big beneficiary, it is only number 4 on this top ten list. What is very important to note is the total federal spending in the state at $21.48 Billion.
A whopping $12.4 Billion is listed as Homeland Security and Social Security is only $3.2. There were no figures for Medicaid or social programs, but one can assume that only a small portion can be attributed to those programs.
So what does that tell us? Should the DOD decide to cut a ton of money, I am sure they are looking at big ticket items like the Pearl Harbor Shipyard, Barking Sands missle facility, the 18 P-8A Poseidon submarine-hunting jets, Stryker Brigade, the submarines based at Pearl Harbor, the Maui Super Computer, and a whole list of other programs or units.
Add to that the cuts to the $12.4 Billion from Homeland Security, Hawaii could easily be facing cuts in the range of $3 to $6 billion of federal spending in the next couple of years, or sooner should we hit the “Fiscal Cliff” on Monday night. In the long term, I think we should reasonably be prepared to see federal spending cuts in Hawaii in the $8 to $10 billion range.
Now if Governor Abercrombie did not return to run in 2010 and stayed in Congress, he would now have 22+ years of seniority in the House Arm Services committee and would be in a position to protect Hawaii from some of these cuts. His choice to run for Governor has put Hawaii in a distinct disadvantage at this time and his justification of appointing Schatz on the need for seniority in Congress seems to be contradicted by his own actions.
At some point, even dedicated politicians should be allowed to let personal concerns and needs take precedence in their lives. After 20 years in Washington, making the grueling round trip 15-20 times a year, Neil wanted to finally come home. So now it will be his fault if, in these fiscal cliff times, Hawaii loses federal dollars??
Yes. If the shoe fits, then it is on his watch he let down the people of Hawaii in that respect. If Schatz gets home sick for loco mocos, is that a justification for him leaving Washington? If you are to be a leader for this State, you better man up and take one for the voters.
We didn’t keep electing Abercrombie for his good looks for 20 years, his social contract with the electorate was to get his seniority and use it for the benefit of the State and those who supported his election.
This is an interesting perspective. So anyone running for Congress has to be willing to serve for life come hell or high water?
For the vast majority of people in executive positions, twenty years is a decent run.
On the other hand, you have a critical mass of people decrying “career” politicians.
Hard to have it both ways.
Did I say anything about “career” politicians that implied they should all get out? In life you take the good with the bad, that is just a given. Only a fool or a child (or a liberal Democrat) think we live in a perfect world (or can legislate one).
Sometimes we luck out and get a fantastic legislator who is really for the people and a tough realist who can bring back the bacon for his constiuents. That was Senator Inouye.
He wasn’t flawless or perfect, but he worked to the very end for the people of Hawaii who sent him to Washington. He went over all the minute details on legislation that affected Hawaii and communicated with the affected groups in Hawaii to make sure we were not getting “thrown under the bus” by the legislation. He wasn’t 100% perfect on all the issues and legislation, but at least he tried his hardest to cover as many bases as possible. After all, he was only human.
The political reality is that Hawaii has only four votes in Congress. Compared to California, Florida, Texas and New York, our Congressional delegation is dwarfed by the massive number of votes they control. The facts are simple, these numbers cannot be ignored. The people we send to Congress had better be the smartest and toughest politicians from now on. The best test would be to drop candidates in the Southside of Chicago at 2 a.m. and let the survivors run for Congress.
It’s not responsibility of US tax payers to subsidIze economy of Hawaii with pork? Hawaii needs to create an environment to promote business diversiy instead of relying on corporate welfare and tourism only.
The MHPCC is a big government boondoggle with a very low return on investment
I prefer the term “exotic” to “foreign.” Sounds sexier.
Military spending is vulnerable in Hawaii, regardless of who’s Senator, I believe… especially if the lawmakers have their way. Cutting military spending is on top of the list.
Although I certainly do not support the United States’ general involvement in foreign wars, I do have to support the human beings who live here, send their children to our schools, volunteer in our communities, buy STUFF off base, and suport our economy.
On our street in Enchanted Lake (Kailua), there are at least 8 military families. Their children and their spouses enrich our community by playing sports, being involved in environmental and artistic groups, and keeping Kailua clean and safe.
I cannot imagine what it would be like if approximately 125,000 people of all ages left O`ahu over the next three or four years. .
further evidence the military is not just for defense;
it’s yet another form of desperate welfare in a state that fails to produce. now that Inouye’s gone, Hawaii is going to pay dearly for failing to motivate and develop ITSELF. handouts rarely last forever; ask Greece. don’t like this? sorry, but you might have to start imagining some military cuts in Hawaii. it’s one thing for people on the mainland to support a critical military portal; but supporting a retirement place for military families? this is not in the major US priority list.
Whoops!!! support, not suport
Like most pundits’ projections of the future, you are likely to do just as well flipping a coin.
Given that the center of the world economy is shifting big time to Asia, I think that the conclusion that Hawaii’s strategic value as a major naval base in the middle of the Pacific has declined should be assigned a low probability of being correct.
Hawaii is also used as a benefit to encourage re-upping, according to my friends in the military. They can guarantee that they will have a tour here if they re-enlist.
I think that Sen. Inouye’s clout will be most missed on the social side where his support was critical for lots of native Hawaiian programs and other programs providing benefits to local folks.
And spare me the observations on ethnic tensions from Mainlanders who have little understanding of or experience with the subtle cultural mixtures of Hawaii.
We aren’t perfect, but day to day we prove to the world that a mixture of ethnicities, cultures, and religions can live together amicably. In my experience, in Hawaii, if you show respect, you get treated with respect.
Spend more time driving on the freeways; there is little respect, regardless of where you are on Oahu. Many people, regardless of culture and race, just do not pay attention to other cars and other people.
I regularly see people letting people merge in a zipper like fashion – first you, then me, then the next person alternating.
I rarely see anything like that driving on the West Coast or in Michigan. People do not slow down to let you in, wave you on, etc. If anything, they step on the gas to make sure that you don’t get in ahead of them.
Plenty people get plenty issues.
So says Mr. Sun Cho Lee!
I don’t know if you’ve been looking at Civil Beat, but there is commentary there by conservatives stating to the effect that Hawaii is full of spoiled-brat liberals living off the fat of the US federal government, and as Hawaii loses its senior Senators, we will all learn the hard way that the only sound way to prosperity is by fostering a sound business environment.
But you will notice in the comment(s) above a conservative effectively asserts that liberal idealists in Hawaii need to stop day dreaming and come to realize that the task of effective politicians isn’t creating well-intentioned programs but bringing home the pork, and that Dan Inouye was a great conservative politicians because he did not waste his time on legislation, but on bringing home the money.
One will notice that in both cases, the focus of the conservative rhetoric is on the need for realism, even though the actual arguments being made about the role of the federal government in Hawaii contradict one another.
That is, the emotional core of the arguments is the same, although the policies diverge radically.
Likewise, you will find in the comments above the argument by a leftist that Senator Dan Inouye was a great liberal and that — thank goodness! — the US military is here to stay.
What you have is a conservative policy position on the US military in Hawaii being argued passionately and self-righteously by a leftist in the old leftist fashion.
So what one finds in terms of ideological positions is an underlying mentality that is rooted in temperament and personality.
This may have a biological basis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation
There could be a dramatic downsizing of the US military presence in Hawaii.
The ‘tilt to Asia’ is not necessarily a tilt to Hawaii.
In a nutshell, there may be a bit less of a military presence in terms of the Navy and Air Force, and much, much less of a presence in terms of the Army and Marines.
An article from the European Institute’s website entitled “HISTORIC SHIFT IN U.S. DEFENSE STRATEGY WILL HAVE MAJOR IMPACT ON EUROPE”
http://www.europeaninstitute.org/EA-April-2012/historic-shift-in-us-defense-strategy-will-have-major-impact-on-europe.html
What is going on now represents the confluence of long-term budget cuts, technological change, changed military doctrines and changed political ideologies.
Basically, the Cold War is finally being acknowledged as finished, and Russia recognized as not a threat to Europe or the US at all. The US presence in Europe is going to be a thing of the past. This process of disengaging from Europe has been going on for almost a quarter of a century. More importantly, terrorism is just not a big threat anymore, if it ever was.
Then, there are the budget constraints. Budget cuts to the military will be drastic and inevitable, especially to the less mobile Army and Marines, as opposed to the Navy and Air Force.
Economically, things are even worse than when President Clinton slashed the defense budget in the 1990s in the wake of the Reagan deficit.
Geopolitically, with the disappearance of the Soviet Union and the looming threat of a full-scale invasion, the goal of US policy is now to maintain regional stability in areas where rising economic powers like China can disrupt the status quo. (In contrast, the Soviet Union represented the status quo, and the European theatre of the Cold War was actually very stable.) This change in thinking goes back to the strategic re-evaluation of the Bush administration, even though the Bush administration, and the early Obama administration, were absorbed by the wars in Iraq and Afganistan.
These last two sentences are awesome in their implications.
First, General Douglas MacArthur warned President Kennedy against a ground war in Asia.
Second, Secretary Gates – who pushed for continuing with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq until some sort of victory or closure was reached – was himself probably against getting involved in those countries in the first place.
Third, this has profound significance for a tectonic shift in US military doctrine, involving a return to an earlier overall strategy.
This involves fewer ground troops, relying on non-American troops of US allies, and stationing what troops the US has in Asia itself.
Again, this strategic revolution goes back to the Bush administration just after the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
Although the author does not mention this, it also involves a change in political ideology.
In the 19th century, US foreign policy was isolationistic. Isolationism was associated with the Republican Party. One can still see that with Patrick Buchanon and Ron Paul.
Starting with WWI, the US embarked on an internationalist foreign policy, which is associated with the Democratic Party (and President Wilson in particular). The wiki:
This foreign policy doctrine to some degree migrated to or was appropriated by Republicans.
This is also known as “foreign policy idealism”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism_(international_relations)
This idealist doctrine broke down severely with the start of the Second World War, but then was revived, and then broke down in Vietnam.
Under Kissinger and Nixon, there was a turn toward foreign policy realism focused on balance-of-power politics (e.g., Nixon visiting communist China and recognizing it over Taiwan as the true China, in order to help further the divide between China and the Soviet Union). One of the code words in this tradition is “off-shore balancing”. This is what Obama is fully embracing in Asia.
So one irony is that the Bush administration embraced a neo-conservative foreign policy (rooted in liberal internationalism) calling for the single-handed invasion of an entire country just as the Bush administration embraced a military doctrine calling for a smaller, lighter, high-tech military.
Another irony is that the Democratic Obama administration is tilting not just toward Asia, but toward a realist foreign policy. Realism is migrating to the Democratic Party. (In fact, this might be true in terms of fiscal policy as well, starting with Clinton.)