The special election to fill the 1st Congressional District seat continues to get lots of national attention.
Politico.com again pointed to the antagonism between Dan Inouye and Ed Case to explain the divided Democratic Party vote. The story quotes Case as saying he would not rule out another run against Akaka, should the other Dan choose to run again in 2012.
The Daily Caller puts it this way:
The special election to replace the remaining term of Rep. Neil Abercrombie, who resigned to run for governor, has proved embarrassing for national Democrats. Unable to persuade either Democrat Ed Case or Colleen Hanabusa to drop out of the contest to prevent a split of the Democratic vote, the Democratic Campaign Congressional Committee decided to withdraw from the special election.
But Van Hollen said math from this weekend’s election will show that Djou will be a short-timer. “I can confidently predict that the Democrats together will get a majority of the vote [this weekend], just like the Democrat candidate will in November will get a majority of the vote.”
There are lots of similar analyses out there for the picking, most of which adopt the Inouye-Case Conflict scenario.
I admit it’s a great narrative for Inouye’s faction, but I think it obscures what is going on.
In my view, the Inouye-Case split is a symptom of, rather than a cause of, the division in the Democratic Party. After all, although it hasn’t yet gotten the same degree of attention, there’s already a similar party divide playing out in the gubernatorial race.
The open hostility between Hannemann and Abercrombie appears to reflect the same split in the party, in this case with Inouye’s support and backing claimed by Hannemann.
Although we don’t often think of it this way, both Case and Abercrombie were first elected from the same State House district in Manoa, and both have remained aloof from what some would describe as the old guard of local Democrats.
Unlike Case, Abercrombie has courted organized labor and has drawn a lot of union support throughout most of his career. And his campaign relies on its share of party insiders as well. So the underlying party divide challenges simple “insider-outsider” rhetoric.
I have to say that I don’t understand all the players and interests, and how those play out in the party’s split, perhaps a reflection of the decline in political reporting over the past decades.
In some ways, the degree of change is akin to the Reformation and subsequent Protestant challenge Catholicism’s hold on religion.
Wikipedia’s summary bears a very strong relationship to how many would explain and/or justify the split among Democrats.
In the political sphere, its a move from the old brand of wholesale politics, where votes were gathered from the middlemen who in turn could control blocks of dependent voters. The system brought increasing charges of corruption, and is being challenged by politicians increasingly bypassing those vote wholesalers by claiming the right to establish direct ties to the voters, now made easier and more efficient by the emergence of new technology.
From Wikipedia:
The Protestant Reformation began as an attempt to doctrinally reform the Catholic Church, effected by Western European Catholics who opposed what they perceived as false doctrines and ecclesiastic malpractice — especially the teaching and the sale of indulgences, and simony, the selling and buying of clerical offices — that the reformers saw as evidence of the systemic corruption of the church’s hierarchy, which included the Pope.
***
The protests against the corruption emanating from Rome began in earnest when Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk at the university of Wittenberg, called in 1517 for a reopening of the debate on the sale of indulgences and the authority to absolve sin and remit one from purgatory. Luther’s dissent marked a sudden outbreak of a new and irresistible force of discontent. The Reformers made heavy use of inexpensive pamphlets (using the relatively new printing press) so there was swift movement of both ideas and documents, including The Ninety-Five Theses.***
Luther borrowed from the humanists the sense of individualism, that each man can be his own priest (an attitude likely to find popular support considering the rapid rise of an educated urban middle class in the North), and that the only true authority is the Bible, echoing the reformist zeal of the conciliar movement and opening up the debate once again on limiting the authority of the Pope. While his ideas called for the sharp redefinition of the dividing lines between the laity and the clergy, his ideas were still, by this point, reformist in nature. Luther’s contention that the human will was incapable of following good, however, resulted in his rift with Erasmus finally distinguishing Lutheran reformism from humanism.
Sound familiar? I’m getting a whole new sense of what we’re living through.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s an old story, Ian. I recall the party convention in 1994 when Jack Lewin had the temerity to challenge Ben Cayetano for governor. Charlie Toguchi, I think it was, stood at the podium and told the crowd that “It’s our turn,” referring to the then young turks–Cayetano, Abercrombie, Sakamoto, et al. Lewin was seen as an upstart who had no business butting in. I was Jack’s campaign treasurer, and it was an interesting time.
Strangely, I think the three way race is a fractal of the DPH problem over all. abercrombie is left-of-center but does not hold rigidly to a working class ideology and does not give deference to the labor-leader aristocracy. case is center-right does not think of class struggle at all and rebels against the labor-leader aristocracy. these two men represent factions that have been slowly consolidating on opposing sides of Inouye and when he is gone, may very well represent the real crisis of the DPH. it has been a mistake for Inouye and the senior cadres not to have integrated the new Left and environmentalists into the party instead moving control of things to shadow committees and directives from the senior senator. akaka’s re-election campaign was an example of how this should have been done over the course of the last 30 years effectively, but now it will likely be too little too late as the leading groups have had 30-40 years of cool relations and distrust that are much harder to heal. inouye’s last ditch effort to support mayor honeymuffin who has the same political views and elitist credentials as case (if not more to the right) is yet another show of short-term gamesmanship of personality over long term political strategy or vision for the people. this race for governor could be an opportunity to redefine the DPH and Inouye’s legacy and instead he’d be squandering it if he were to hedge on mayor honeymuffin as the ILWU has.
Line of flight, your otherwise interesting comment is severely hampered by the decision to make fun of the mayor’s name.
i wasn’t making fun of his name, i was making fun of him by using his name. unfortunate that a touch of humor so easily overwhelms some, but perhaps not a proper interlocutor.
Nothing in life is simple. Case is an opportunist. But as to the split, Hawaii is so almost completely a Democrat-dominated government that it would be surprising if splits did not develop, don’t you think?
Without doubt there are state legislators who might be Republicans if that didn’t mean marginalizing oneself. Some Republicans have shifted parties and lo– they can become committee chairs when reincarnated as Democrat. This doesn’t mean they are Democrats, though, just that they are in the Democratic Party.
Under the surface I’m sure Hawaii Democrats have at least as many splits and factions per capita as other states, maybe more.
Voters in the CD1 election either have a choice of one Republican and two Democrats, or maybe two Republicans and one Democrat, depending on how Case is viewed. Were he to change his skin and come out as an actual Republican he might not have the same chance of being elected that he has now.
IMHO, of course.
Meanwhile, Djou takes wildly false potshots from the sidelines, and nobody (local at least) bothers to call him out on it:
http://factcheck.org/2010/05/did-ed-case-kill-3000-hawaii-jobs-no/
Being a fan of history and a critic of religion, I enjoyed the quoted account of the Reformation. But I think you give WAY too much credit to the Democrats/Hawaii by likening the two, even looseley. It is not just a difference in degree, I think it a difference in kind. What we are seeing in Hawaii is the bitter end of a cycle that began 75 or so years ago and is now running on the fumes of personality, not principle. Once the senior Dan goes, all bets are off.
Oh, and Catholicism did not have a hold on “religion,” it had a hold on Christianity, in Europe.
I agree that any party as dominating as the DPH is will develop internal splits. That’s natural, as interest groups who want to influence policy and ambitious politicians will focus their energies on where the real power lies — the DPH and (in many cases) the Democratic primaries.
Another factor underlying the conflict between the old guard Democrats and the “new” Democrats seems to be a lack of a shared general vision. Hawaii is still struggling over some pretty major issues: Hawaiian sovereignty, general environmental philosophy (water rights, native gathering/use rights, air pollution/cane), school system (beyond just quality – there’s not even consensus on how we’re structured), and government processes/openness (the Superferry debacle would not have played out as it did if there were a general consensus that most government projects require an EIS).
Conflicts in these areas always exist, but many states have come to a generalized consensus on some of the general policy-level questions, with disputes limited to implementation and specific issues. Our disputes seem to be on a more existential level, which makes it tougher to bridge the gaps and only exacerbates the generational and structural splits Larry describes above.
One practical shift that’s been playing out since the Waihee-Cayetano 16 years exhausted the ancien regime: neighbor island parties (and I mean the active party officers and precinct folks) perhaps reflect more of the “new guard” (more left of center and ideologically confrontational on environmental and social justicel issues) than the old guard (more conservative, American dreamers [decent jobs for us and for the kids, a house, clean parks and beaches] and Ariyoshi-like working quietly but grousing behind the scenes) — and some of the resentment seems to be bubbling out in fights between old guard supporters of Mufi and the new guard county officials who apparently favor Neil (a credentials challenge delayed the Maui County convention’s short business agenda a few weeks ago — the County officers were elected in the off-year convention so there wasn’t much to “fight” about on the table…). In the past, the old guard would gather and work on campaigns in election year cycles but the precincts and county committees would be largely dormant in off-years; while perhaps not as active as in other places, the county committees do a lot more than they used to and the slots are filled by folks who want to have a say in what’s going on (and watch MSNBC and other popularizers of the 24-hour news cycle with storylines generated from D.C. , Politico’s daily cheat sheet, etc.). Elected officials, on the other hand, may have little connection to the party folks (and that’s not that new) and that’s part of the friction (candidates are on their own in garnering support from family, friends, unions, businesses and other stakeholders) between party folk who want to set the agenda and elected folk who want to stay in office. The split isn’t necessarily generational as middle aged and young beneficiaries of the 1954 revolutionaries (and I think Dan Inouye might be the last still in elected office) could just as well be GOP followers or independents as Democrats. Check out next weekend how few elected Democrats will be in Waikiki for the Party Convention (admittedly the Maui folks may want to be be at the Barrio Fiesta in Wailuku more — better food, entertainment and possibly more votes).
Great post. For the record, I could have spit out all of the Protestant Reformation stuff in your post straight out of my head, despite being completely unused for 18 years. If anybody else out there went to Mckinley and had the greatest teacher of all time (AP European History teacher Bobbi Kakuda), you know what I’m talking about.
The wholesale-retail split is a fascinating dynamic. I think that winning elections will still largely be a wholesale game, but wholesale coalitions will become much less static (unions) and much more dynamic (Organizing for America). I guess this is still much less wholesale than in days of yore, and I think this is a good thing.
From a strictly neutral standpoint, I also think its silly to knock Case for saying he would run against Akaka in 2012. The fact is, all politicians are opportunists. Don’t get me wrong, if I were running the Hanabusa or Djou campaigns, I would try and mercilessly beat him over the head with this. Hell, I’d print out “Case- US Senate 2012” bumper stickers and hand ’em out for giggles at the convention.
Anybody that steals that last idea has to buy me lunch.
The Politico link seems to jump to the second page of the story. Here is a link to the first.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37588.html
Thanks for the analysis, Ian. And for some of the insightful remarks from your regulars.
The dominant explanation of the Case-Inouye split, which is dominant because it spins the conflict in a manner beneficial to the corporate media, Case supporters, Republicans and the haole sense of superiority, never fails to annoy me.
According to this “theory,””locals” have an exaggerated sense of respect for elders AND suufer fom a “plantation mentality” which causes them to blindly follow the dictates of Senator Inouye and “the Unions.”
Why else would someone not recognize what a gift to Hawaii’s people Ed Case is?
The tensions within the Maui Democratic Party have been mentioned in two of the comments. If we use the Maui example as a basis for testing our theories, it should be noted that the “new Left and environmentalist” mentioned by l.o.f. are in control of the formal party over there. And neither the Maui “new guard” or “old guard” like Ed Case, so the Case-Inouye split is not very useful for explaining things over there. Or rather, it IS helpful to try to apply the theory of the split BECAUSE it so obviously does not apply. Which sends us back to the drawing board, in pursuit of a better explanation.
Why does the Mufi-Neil split apply to Maui but not the Akaka-Case split?
The Democratic Party has had a major influx of “outsiders” and “new-comers” over the years. Certainly there was the Gill-Burns split in the late 60’s early 70s and that was an earlier expression of the same divisions. The Rainbow Coalition efforts of the late 80s, early 90s established a strong presence in the Party of newcomers and reformed the internal governance of the Party to make it more democratic and transparent. The Kucinich and Dean campaigns deposited more reform-minded members, adding to the “Gill/Rainbow Coalition” core.
Neil comes out of this tendency. Case most pointedly does not. Mufi is openly hostile and the feeling is mutual.
In the Akaka-Case race, the “new Left” grouping within the Party came down solidly behind Senator Akaka, largely because of Ed’s uncritical support for Bush’s war. In that case, they were aligned with both Labor and the Inouye group. In the Hanabusa-Case race, the war is a less prominent issue, probably because it is now Obama’s war. And Hanabusa’s efforts to reinvent her position on Civil Unions has not been successful in overcoming the distrust caused by her machinations to hold the bill last year. So “progressives” within the Party are only nominally supporting her over Case, without the enthusiasm felt for Akaka. So the hope of the Hanabusa campaign to replicate the alliance which won the Senate seat for Akaka : Inouye, plus Labor, plus “progressives,” has not materialized.
And for all the commercial media’s talk about the traditional, insitutional support for Hanabusa, as an active Democrat, I jusy don’t see it. I don’t see large lines of union signholders waving for Colleen. I see more Case and Djou signholders. Labor, like the progressives, has a hard time motivating the base for Colleen.
When the “institutional Democrats” and the much smaller group of “progressives” are in alignment, the Democrats are strong and “the cause is just.” When they are fighting each other, the Dems are stymied and, sometimes, the Republicans are able to take advantage.
In the medium term, I think the health of the Party depends upon strengthening the ties between Labor and the progressives. In part, that is because they are the expression of a contradiction within the Democratic project: a respect for the environment vs the need for good paying jobs, a need for “solidarity” and discipline, while respecting individual freedom and initiative. Where we disagree, we need to AGREE to disagree and do it civilly.
The polarizing tensions exacerbated by the Mufi-Neil races conspire against a healthy internal civility. Fortunattely, many Labor folk appreciate Neil and recognize him as a friend, even if some of the “progressives” lack an understanding and appreciation for the concerns of Labor.
In my opinion, the Maui tensions are NOT being handled well by either side. Fortunately, that is the worst example and (fingers crossed) things should run more smoothly at the state convention. (hope, hope).
i think anyone would be hard pressed to find among the middle and upper class environmentalists that control the Maui party who could be properly characterized as “new Left” unless we count people like Rep. Agaran — who is generally associated with the ‘old guard’ as a former cabinet member in Cayetano’s administration. one of the problems with Maui forming strong blue-green coalitions is the limousine liberalism of the environmentalists there which simply confirms labor’s distrust. as for your state’s politics overall, i agree with you kolea that the unify forces that rallied around akaka was not institutionalized, and perhaps, because inouye and the shadow party has squandered or fought every opportunity over the last 30-40 years to minimize what case has come to represent.
Although Senator Inouye and the Democratic leadership are trying to focus attention on the idea that the two Democrats got nearly 60% of the vote, the REAL STORY in this election is that a larger number, nearly 70%, cast their votes against the wishes of the 48-year incumbent and the Hawaii political machine.
While a Republican win might make a better headline, the hidden story is that large numbers of Democrats also voted for “change” in order to continue what they started in 2008.
Andy Woerner
Democratic Candidate for U.S. Senate-Hawaii