This interesting observation was part of a longer email from a regular reader. I’m sharing it here for the sake of discussion, not as an endorsement of the particular assessments it contains.
Dan Inouye on federal funding of the rail project in Civil Beat describes himself as a “realist”.
But is he a realist about the rail project itself? He says that it is necessary and overdue, but has he given this the slightest bit of thought? Has he talked with any advisers on this?
On the issues, he seems to have lost touch.
On China, he has become hawkish, but not because of Chinese aggression but because Inouye wants to channel money to Hawaii. But in its buildup against China, the US is ignoring Hawaii, it is stationing troops in Guam and Australia and Japan; China’s rise is a regional issue, not super-power competition. (The same is true of Colleeen Hanabusa, who is ignorantly playing up the China threat to bring money to Hawaii. She said in a Civil Beat interview that the Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta agreed with her on the China threat, but Panetta said to her “We need to be flexible on China.” I take it he meant that one cannot simply confront China directly, but also that there will not be a military buildup in Hawaii. I don’t think that she realizes that there are no big military plans for Hawaii.)
It seems that Inouye has become reactionary, not merely conservative. The trademarks of a reactionary would be 1) a tendency to try to recreate a past order (the Cold War), 2) a strong nostalgia for and glorification of the past (World War II), 3) a reflexive and unthinking (reactive) attitude toward adopting certain policies (doing whatever it takes to bring money to Hawaii), 4) a lack of creative and pro-active planning. Unfortunately, that describes Hawaii in general. Hawaii is described as the “ultimate blue state” in its voting patterns, but the character of the society is not just culturally conservative, but reactionary.
How would we rate Hawaii’s potential Congressional delegation along those lines? Not necessarily how they stack up in their voting patterns, but in terms of their personalities. How conservative, reactionary or progressive are they in their temperament?
Most reactionary — and disguised as good Democrats — would be Mufi Hannemann and Tulsi Gabbard. Inouye might be reactionary in his temperament, but not so far right as Gabbard and Hannemann. Likewise with Hirono and Hanabusa. Linda Lingle, a moderate conservative who likes to disguise herself as a moderate, would be to the left of them. Case is a fiscal conservative and social progressive, could be described as a bit left of Lingle. I suspect that Charles Djou is a lot closer to Case than to any other candidate, and is not as socially conservative as he would make himself appear.
When you don’t look at the voting patterns or the TV commercials, but at the candidates’ personalities, a different picture of Hawaii emerges, that of a relatively cheerful, hospitable reactionary society, much like much of the South.
I would take issue with several things here.
I don’t think it’s fair to write off the Congressional delegation’s “bring home the bacon” emphasis as evidence of a reactionary stance. It’s politics. A different beast.
I do agree, though, that there are elements of reaction to be found in our Democratic leaning state. Some seem to be legacies of particular political figures or camps. Former Honolulu prosecutor Charles Marsland put an reactionary imprint on criminal justice policies and we haven’t recovered. Despite the size, complexity, and cost of our corrections system, we allow the system to be run largely by those who have gotten all their experience within this inbred bureaucracy and who lack professional credentials in the area of corrections. Many of our state and county departments operate the same way, relying on trusted insiders with local experience rather than experienced and qualified professionals with significant experience outside of Hawaii’s insular island political culture.
I can’t swallow the view of Linda Lingle being “to the left” of Reps. Hirono and Hanabusa, viewed either in terms of “personality” or politics. Lingle palling around with Palin and campaigning for W put the lie to all that.
I recall reading about research showing that some cultural patterns have been frozen in time in Hawaii, while they have continued to evolve in their countries of origin. Some Hawaii Japanese traditions and language, for example, reflect what Japan was like a century ago, offering a fertile ground for cultural research. I have to wonder how many other things are frozen in time in the same way, resistant to change, and especially resistant to change seen as coming from the U.S. mainland.
Just food for thought.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Lingle palling around with Palin and campaigning for W put the lie to all that.”
Jackpot. Thank you, Ian.
Beautifully stated! It is confusing to this American that the President, State, City would have pushed APEC with China as a participant in one breath and in another push China as an enemy, a reason to expand military forces. I am one citizen weary of this policy. Sen. Inouye’s recent vote along with other misguided senators, continues to keep a permanent state of marial law in the US. Totally abrogating our Constitution, according to a recent article in Veterans Today. This stupid favorite nation, Israel, act has resulted in enemies in the Middle East that America never experienced before 1948. Thanks for opening a much needed discussion.
Regarding the concept that local ethnic groups of foreign origin are socio-culturally “frozen in time”: There’s a very interesting book about local Japanese entitled “Jan Ken Po: the World of Hawaii’s Japanese Americans.” The book is now almost 40 years old. But author Dennis Ogawa says Hawaii people of Japanese ancestry who are nisei, sansei, or beyond have Hawaii as the only place in the world where they can truly be “at home.” If they go to Japan they get ostracized as outsiders because their pronunciation and cultural habits are throwbacks to many decades previously; and if they go to live in Japanese communities in California they are also ostracized because of their pidgin accents and unique Hawaii enculturation. (Thus, Hawaiian activists are wrong when they say Hawaii’s Japanese have Japan to look to as their true homeland — Hawaii is the only true homeland for multigeneration ethnic Japanese).
Regarding the issue of China rising as a military/diplomatic power in the Pacific: That has been the policy of the Chinese government for a long time. Some evidence can be found in the “Pacific Islands Report” — a compilation of newspaper articles from various Pacific island nations published 5 days per week by the East-West Center in Manoa. Use their internal search engine to look for keyword China. There are a surprising number of articles, going back a decade or more, which report that China is giving megabucks to pay for construction of roads, hospitals, schools, etc. throughout the Pacific; including scholarships to send Pacific island college students to Cuba to be trained as medical doctors. For a while there was intense competition between red China vs. Taiwan to give foreign aid and thereby capture the political loyalty of individual Pacific island nations regarding recognition and support in the United Nations. The use of foreign aid to win political allegiance from foreign nations is, or course, a “trick” used by the U.S. and the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War.
I think a series of strong arguments could be made for each of the “talking points.”
Some fail to grasp the concept that the Democratic Party “tent” is the most widespread, varied or diverse.
It’s also easy or convenient to overlook that folks can be classified differently on the separate facets of their lives: religion and core beliefs, economics and budget, relaxation and sport and other interests.
For that matter it’s may not illogical to be “conservative” on a give issue – say, long-term debt – and liberal on other things, such as short term debt or women’s rights to choose.
…and anyone idly attacking traditional logic or custom, or various ethnicities, or seniors, or distinguished folk, without providing a viable improvement are just trying to overturn the applecart for their selfish benefit without creating any improvement strategy or goods – at least for others.
Sorry, folks, but the quoted comment from a “regular reader” is fact-free bloviation. Anyone who confidently asserts that Hirono is to the right of Lingle (and Case and Djou) is displaying such a towering a level of political ignorance that it makes anything else he or she says about politics not worth taking seriously.
It cuts both ways. Most of the rail-haters are ridiculously reactionary and either selfishly elitist with vested interests or blinded by vague, unrealistic, egotistical idealism. Some are a combination of both. Some just need to define themselves by opposing something. And a few don’t even know what year it is.
It seems to me that the term “rail haters” is one of those spinmeister terms used to fling at all opponents of the city’s rail project without basis. While there are some who take a “no rail, no way” stance, I would guess they are far outnumbered by those who have no deep-seated opposition to rail, but oppose on design and cost terms. I would also add some who bristle at the political railroad job done to force this particular 30-year old basic design thru without benefit of robust consideration of alternatives, trade offs, etc., in terms of cost, aesthetics, and function.
I agree. The other terms are ” Do it NOW!”, ” It’s been 30 years.”
I’d say “political railroad job” is more of a spinmeister term, and a pretty lame cliche at that. It’s false, too, but don’t let that stop you.
not as lame as “spinmeister”, mr friendly.
please share your next snarky, pointless batch of name-calling that does nothing to back your views.
Glad to. Read before reacting, and take your criticism of “spinmeister” up with Ian, who introduced the term in his response to my initial post. My use of it to rebut his argument does not constitute an endorsement of the term, which I agree is dated and lame. That snarky enough for you, genius?
I appreciate that your “regular reader” does not make the common mistake of confusing “reactive” behavior with “reactionary” politics. And I appreciate his view that people with an explicit commitment to politics which once were historically progressive may be closed to change. I think of old Bolsheviks, stuck trying to defend the Soviet state against reformers. (No, I am NOT equating the Hawaii Democrats with the Soviet CP.)
But, as both Dave and Ian point out, a project which redefines words to the point where we are told Lingle is “to the left of Mazie” shows the person’s thinking has run off the tracks.
I have to confess, I do not know, in her heart of hearts, what the heck Lingle might actually believe, if anything. I think she lacks both convictions and principles, so she might morph depending upon the needs of the moment. For a short while, she was a fairly moderate, almost “liberal” Governor. She encouraged the formation of both a Republican environmental group and a chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, an openly gay organization.
But as it became clear both efforts would not prevail against the growing rightward currents in the local party, she abandoned the efforts. In fact, her betrayal of an early pledge to allow a bill like civil unions to become law, is pretty definitive evidence of her outright betrayal of those who had been encouraged by her early liberalism.
I think the charge that Inouye (or Hawaii as a whole) is reactionary is a cheap charge, motivated more by the esthetic satisfaction of being contrary than by a close regard for useful analysis. I dispute that Inouye idealizes either the WWII period or the Cold War.
The attitude of the US ruling class towards China varies depending upon which sector of the business community you are talking a bout. Clearly, some of the most reactionary sectors of the corporate elite are making lots of money by importing and selling cheap goods made in China. I have heard Walmart explained less as an American company than as the retail arm of the Chinese economy. If the most reactionary corporate groups in the US were to see an advantage in stoking war-fever against China, I have little doubt the public mood would be much more inflamed than it is.
Inouye has long bought into a kind of “Military Keynesianism.” The author is correct to note his desire to bring federal “defense” dollars into Hawaii is probably motivating his anti-China statements. But that is scarcely “reactionary.” The US military-industrial complex (or, as Chomsky points out, there is a M-I-C in each congressional district)… the MIC needs to stoke fears of a boogeyman to justify diverting taxpayer dollars from socially useful programs into mega-profits for the military contractors. Al-Quaida and the hot wars in the Middle-east/Central Asia have allowed for some pretty good profits for some well-connected folks, but “that well has run dry.”
China is the best candidate to serve that role. Americans have mixed feelings about China. We are both grateful and resentful of them for two related reasons. They provide cheap imports for American consumers, allowing us to buy stuff we associate with a high standard of living at a time when we don’t have much money to spare. OTOH, we have lost most of our manufacturing jobs to them (and other cheap labor countries) and that annoys us. And they have bought much of our Treasury bonds, allowing us to postpone confronting the severe structural problems underlying our economic path. We have mized feelings on that, too.
True “reactionaries” would be fanning national, perhaps racial, resentment against the Chinese at a much higher level than what we have seen so far. It ain’t happening. That does not mean I am not concerned about the nakedly imperialist policy pronouncement made recently by both Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama about US intentions in the Asia-Pacific region. They both announced “we” are asserting a right to have a say over what goes on in “the region,” that we are stepping up our military presence in the area and that we are determined to stay.
Ken Conklin did stray into “reactionary” territory in his comments about China’s policies in the region. He (partially) redeemed himself when he admitted the US (and Russians) also engaged in development projects.
What ken (and others) do not want to acknowledge is that it is the United States which is behaving in the most blatantly imperialist and militaristic fashion of any power in the world. After the collapse of the Soviet union, there was a period when the US started to cut its military forces and try to cash in on “the Peace Dividend” made possible by the turn of events. Even under Poppa Bush, we CUT military spending!
But some “strategic thinkers” saw the collapse of the Soviet Union as a unique opportunity for the US to press its geopolitical advantage and establish unchallengable “full spectrum dominance” of as much of the world’s surface as possible. It was the “neo-cons” who first spoke up, with a special emphasis on the Middle-East, grabbing oil and targeting oil-financed Arab regimes defiant of Israel, the United States or both. The clearest articulation of this vision came from the Project for a New American Century.
A parallel, only slightly less extreme group coalesced within the Democratic Party. The rhetoric was slightly calmer, but the overall goals were the same. Increase military spending, expand US overseas military presence into South America, Africa and Central Asia, encircle China.
That project IS imperialist. I am not sure Inouye is comfortable with it. I think he has an old soldier’s disenchantment with too easy reliance upon combat to achieve foreign policy goals. But he balances that with the need for the kind of congressional appropriations horse-trading that ensures federal dollars flow into Hawaii’s economy. I think that is his main motivation for supporting the Train as well.
Finally, on Mazie. I think I have had enough unguarded conversations with her to say with confidence that in HEr “heart of hearts,” she is very progressive. She has one of the most progressive voting records in Congress and I can see no way to explain it based upon a more cynical explanation than her voting reflects her values. There are not well-organized pressure groups in Hawaii demanding she vote for human services, education, healthcare, fair tax policies, etc. If she were just looking out for herself, she would cozy up to the corporate lobbyist crowd the way Ed Case has with his votes.
Your “regular reader” discusses the Lingle campaign totally stripped for its most significant context. A vote for Lingle is a vote to transfer control of the US Senate over to Mitch McConnell and the obstructionist and, yes, REACTIONARY Senate Republicans. No matter how your friend wants to redefine the meaning of words like “reactionary” or “liberal,” there will no ambiguity in how reactionary the legislation will be coming out of DC if that occurs.
Dan Inouye as a “realist” is not my kind of realist.
My sewer fees is going up.
The gas price is going up.
The grocery bill is going up.
The water bill will go up to 70% in 5 years.
The rail is $5.5 Billion.
The feds pay $1.55 Billion.
We have to pay the rest.
Senator Inouye, we no can afford.
Kolea-
Hey, you get big props for saying something nice about Bush 41. I think he is one of the most underrated presidents in recent history, and unfortunately I don’t think most people will think any more about him in the future. That’s a shame. I’m not sure the last time we had anyone with as broad and deep of a background as he brought to the table.
He was pragmatic about economics, debt, and foreign policy. He had a deep and realistic understanding of the world. He knew that letting Saddam keep Kuwait would embolden him to grab Saudi oil, which nobody in the world wanted. He knew how to form an international coalition (as a former UN ambassador), how to get bills through congress (as a former congressman), and how to fight a war (with overwhelming force), and how to stop fighting a war.
He wasn’t slave to economic ideology. As you said, he cut military spending.. and raised taxes! Knowing full well he had pledged not to, he made the pragmatic decision that it was the right thing to do and consciously risked re-election. He lost that gamble, but no reasonable analyst can deny that the groundwork for the budget success under Clinton was laid by Bush 41.
I’m sure others will point to one thing that they disagree with and declare him a horrible president, but I think taken in its entirety I think his presidency was admirable.
Throwing Bush and Palin out there as a discussion ender is equivalent to asserting that it is impossible for any Republican to be to the left of any Democrat.
We have to come to terms with the fact that Hawaii Democrats’ policies are slanted heavily against working class and middle class people. Unless you have some other definition of left (H. Marcuse has another definition) then you have to be open to the possibility of something more progressive coming out of the GOP.
Progressivism in America started inside the GOP in the 1850s and stayed inside the GOP until the end of Prohibition. Since it has alredy happened, a reversal is therefore possible, but you do not seem interested in the possbility.
Censored, which Bush do you think WooWoo is talking about?
There’s a slight difference between the two.
Here’s a hint:
One had a brain.