The most interesting political news of the last couple of days was the UH faculty union’s endorsement of Ed Case in the US Senate race over Congresswoman Mazie Hirono, coupled with the results of a Star-Advertiser/Hawaii News Now poll showing Case running well behind Hirono among likely voters in the Democratic primary.
Case is a much more conservative Democrat than Hirono and at odds with the party mainstream. I question whether his conservative views will really be able to draw support from the majority of UH faculty.
The press release put out by the UH Professional Assembly said little about the reasons for choosing to back Case in the race. The union does not appear to have done any polling as part of the endorsement process, or at least no polling expenses were reported during the second half of 2011.
However, UHPA told members more information is coming.
Next week UHPA will bring up a new website called FacultyVotes.org. The website will include video clips of all the candidates interviewed by the PEC, although with more extensive analysis of the campaigns and reasons that led the PEC to reach its conclusions with respect to these candidates.
The union reported paying $3,664.92 for a political action website developed by Strategic Communication Solutions, LLC of Honolulu.
Members of the union’s political endorsement committee, according to the UHPA website, are Dennis Vanairsdale of Kapiolani Community College, Eileen Cain of Leeward Community College, Karla Hayashi of UH Hilo, and Sarita Rai and Glenn Teves, both from UH Manoa.
I suspect that former UHPA associate director and now private lobbyist, John Radcliffe, continues to have a hand in the union’s endorsements. Radcliffe now represents the union for a fee, receiving $41,884.80 from UHPA during the latter half of 2011, and a total of $62,827.20 for the year. His advice has been an important factor in the union’s political strategy in the past, and I suspect his views continue to carry considerable weight within the union leadership. Perhaps John will have more to say to explain the union’s position and how it is seen to make sense in Hawaii’s current political landscape.
The latest poll by the Star-Advertiser and it’s broadcast partners show Hirono with a 56-36 lead over her primary opponent. It mirrors the results of an earlier poll done for the Hirono campaign in November 2011. And an even earlier poll, done last March, got similar results.
You don’t have to look very far to find deeply unflattering views of Case and his record during four years in Congress representing the same 2nd District most recently represented by Hirono. One Democratic blog describes case as “basically the Hawaiian Joe Lieberman” for his tendency to take sides against his own party on key issues.
The Donkeylicious blog added this history:
Lots of Democrats have cast various kinds of bad votes, but what really stands out about Case is his support for cutting taxes for rich people. In 2006, he was one of only 34 Democrats (who sided with 196 Republicans) to support reducing the estate tax. He also was one of 15 Democrats (who sided with 229 Republicans) to support cutting capital gains taxes and dividend taxes. And then there’s this crazy vote, which I’ll let Down With Tyranny explain with characteristic force:
Back in 2005 when Case was an astoundingly bad congressman, his Republican allies tried to defund Planned Parenthood by cutting Title X family planning out of the budget– just as they’ve done this year. This year Mazie Hirono strenuously opposed that, of course. Back in 2005 an amendment by far right sociopath Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) targeted NPR, PBS, the National Endowment for the Arts, and Title X family planning all in one shot. Only one Democrat crossed the aisle to vote for the most extreme piece of legislation of that session… Ed Case.
Not even a majority of Republicans were that extreme (in those days). 197 Democrats and 122 Republicans voted NO and it failed 102-320. But Case voted YES, something even right-wing extremists like Darrell Issa, Steve Pearce, Denny Rehberg, Devin Nunes, John Culberson, Buck McKeon and Jerry Lewis, all of whom voted for essentially the same crap this year, were unwilling to do then. Even Tom DeLay and Henry Hyde found it too extreme and voted against it!
Apparently it was legislation to protect lots of tax cuts by cutting spending on programs including those above. And Ed Case was, indeed, the only Democrat to vote for it.
This isn’t the first time the faculty union has made a contrarian endorsement. The union bucked the Democratic establishment and threw its weight behind Linda Lingle in her three races for governor (1998,2002, and 2006), if I recall correctly.
And in 2006, the union described its political effort: “No other interest group endorsed across party lines as extensively as did we.”
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It always amuses me when people talk about “liberal” college professors. They may be socially liberal; but when it comes to money and power they are part of the privileged 1%.
The average salary for an assistant professor at a UH CC is around $60k. Add around $15k for a full professor. Even those mighty, powerful, senior full professors at Manoa earn only $109k on average, including the business and law schools. I’m no economist, but I believe that the 1% line is drawn a bit higher than that.
Yes. That’s where spousal income comes in. We’re talking households here for people filing taxes jointly. Plus most professors have outside consulting income.
I don’t believe “most” professors have consulting income. Any data to support that assertion?
There might be something to what you are saying, that the professoriate is not so leftist, but rather has a professional orientation which can be conservative. In fact, a scholar can have a leftist political ideology, but be very conservative and orthodox (and rigid) in his or her scholarship. But its a pretty big group of people who are professors, about 500,000 in the United States, and they include community college professors who have little power or wealth. Also, I believe that most professors at research universities are in STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, math), and they are just as likely to be conservatives, libertarians (Silicon Valley is libertarian) or even fringe reactionaries (e.g., the Unibomber). In fact, I once heard the argument that UH Manoa is really two different universities joined at the hip, with oceanography, astronomy and geology living on Mount Olympus and everyone else a Morlock.
What you seem to be describing is not academia in the United States, however, but in Europe, like in a country like France, where professors — or at least ELITE professors — enjoy a very high social status and are deeply entrenched in the ‘power elite’ along with politicians, elite business executives and top military brass. (In Asia, educators have a very high social status — e.g., the president of South Korea is the one who bows down lowest when he meets with common school teachers — but educators in Asia do not seem to be part of the power elite as in Europe.) But even though elite professors in Europe (or at least France) are a part of the upper class, they are in the lowest echelon of the upper class.
Some argue that the venality you are attributing to the faculty union is true of labor unions in general. But it seems to me that we are all like that. A surprising number of the Occupy Wall Street crowd in New York were young graduates of elite colleges who once imagined that they would be a part of the 1%. The problem is not hypocritical professors or unions, but human nature.
Didn’t Neil vote for the estate tax reduction when he was in Congress?
Edward Espenett “Ed” Case can:
Run toward fun,
Chase as much fed space he can disgrace
‘E spend on it
We’re fed up with Ed
Y see, in a race he’s really base without grace…
All this just shows a large tent for the dems when we include dinos like Case, and ‘member “in Case you haven’t heard the truth.”
Isn’t it interesting that the UHPA endorsed Mufi but they endorsed Neil against him in his run for Guv? Buyers remorse for Guv or just two different things?
I believe there’s a federal law that prohibits labor unions from spending money on political activity without giving back to dissenting union members the portion of their union dues which were spent on political activities. I recall a news report last week that a House committee held hearings on this issue, and the trouble faced by union members who demand refunds from labor unions to which they are forced to belong (or pay “agency fees” equal to the dues) and which spend their dues money on political lobbying and candidate support with which they disagree. So I wonder whether there are any UH professors have asked for a refund of this portion of their dues? [comment lightly edited]
Getting even for Danny Akaka challenge aside, I suspect the ex-gov would not approve of anyone but her getting the nod.
Remember, Michael, the profs supported Lingle when she won and regretted it for years thereafter.
Unspoken here are the strong ties between the Abercrombie administration and UHPA. Nor the ties between the Abercrombie political network and Ed Case. It would be only a slight overstatement to say Neil’s group appears to be supporting Case in the Senate race.
Beyond that, if we were to look solely at the factors of income, ethnicity and place of residence,, I expect the UHPA membership does not vary too much from their political preferences in the Case-Hirono contest from the population as a whole. Case draws much of his support from professional class, upper-middle class people, particularly haoles. Throw in the Manoa connection of many UHPA members, I think their membership in UHPA has less predictive power than these other factors.
@Micheal in Waikiki,
I doubt Lingle’s campaign lobbied against a Mazie endorsement, though if you have evidence of that, please share it. I have little doubt that Lingle supporters in UHPA would tend to prefer a conservative, Blue Dog Democrat like Case over a progressive like Mazie Hirono. But I suspect the Lingle campaign core are split on whether Mazie or Ed would be a stronger opponent in the general election. I know Democrat themselves are divided over that strategic consideration. Case supporters like to claim Ed would be stronger, but that argument ignores evidence many Case “supporters” will abandon him for Lingle, should Ed win the Democratic nomination.
There might be a friendship between Abercrombie and Case and an overlap in their support networks. But if there was collusion at the top between Abercrombie and Case to gain Case the UHPA endorsement, then one might also expect the UHPA to endorse Gabbard (or anyone) against Hannemann. However, there could be a desire on the part of Abercrombie’s people to just get Mufi out of Hawaii so he does not run for governor again. Also, there might be a sense that Hannemann’s victory in the House race is certain, and this, mixed with a fear of Hannemann, compels endorsements (which is how some unions explained their support of Hannemann after Abercrombie’s victory).
The Star Advertiser recently concluded from a poll that in the last year rail support fell in Honolulu from 53% to 43%. This is from a newspaper that once in polling the public on their worries of the costs of rail, polled mostly respondents on Maui! A little biased, don’t ya think?! But that means that support for rail might be even lower. But the question that just occurred to me was how does that translate into support for Hannemann, or the establishment in general? There could be a lot of ferment out there, and the vote could go to anyone but the same old same old. What do you think of that, Ian?
All of this political mumbo jumbo about who is a liberal or who is a conservative and who supported who when is just… no I can’t say it because Ian would probably edit it out. I ask myself one fundamental question; what of significance has Hirono done during her time in congress? What major legislation has she introduced or sponsored? What has she done to address the problems facing the country? The answer is nothing of note. In my view she (and Hanabusa as well) is a seat warmer, a place holder, a party drone. What we need are independent thinkers, problem solvers, consensus builders. However, Hawaii has a history of voting for more of the same and sadly, that is probably what we will get.
Yeah instead of a progressive democrat which represents the political views of a majority of their constituents lets elect an “independent free thinker consensus builder” i.e. conservative republican.
Great idea.
A delegation of Hawaii fisheries folks visited Case when he was in Congress, and told him that half the bottomfish consumed in Hawaii came from the NW Hawaiian Islands.
This was when the NWHI was about to become a national monument and closed to fishing.
Case responded that those people would have to find something else to eat.
Total disrespect for locals.
Those of use who are concerned about food security and local fisheries aren’t voting for Case.
I’m a Case supporter even though I don’t agree with every one of his positions.
Ed served his constituents well when he was in the House, meeting regularly with people on the Neighbor Islands and discussing the issues with any who wanted to talk to him.
Hirono, aside from not living in the district, has been a no-show in the hinterlands. We rarely see her and when we do, she does not engage in dialogue, but sticks to a script with no deviation.
She is a disgrace as a member of the House, and would be nothing but a lackey of the leadership in the Senate.
The faculty union is not a labor union, it is a guild. The professoriate is one of many modern guilds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild#Modern_guilds
In fact, universities arose in the Middle Ages as guilds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild
(Ironically, it has been asserted that both modern labor unions and corporations developed out of guilds.)
For a portrait of a true labor union, look at the 2010 Brazilian documentary “Waste Land”, about the garbage pickers in the largest garbage dump in the world. There is an interview with the leader of their labor union, who is also a garbage picker. One of his initiatives is for Brazilians to recycle more and consume less — behaviors which are not necessarily in the interest of the garbage pickers, but which are in the interest of Brazil, the environment and humanity.
By the standards of that union in Brazil, one could assert that labor union differs from a guild in that the labor union is characterized by:
1. Workers who lack advanced, specialized skills, (and relatedly)
2. The absence of a credential-granting self-regulatory body,
3. A leadership who work in the fields and factories along with other workers and for the same wages.
4. An agenda which is broadly concerned with social justice and political revolution and only secondarily with the self-interest of the workers.
Some labor unions, by these ad hoc definitions of unions and guilds, would seem to be neither hare nor hound. I am thinking here of the workers at Safeway, who are unionized. They lack the advanced, specialized knowledge and self-regulating credentialization of guilds; but they are not instruments of social revolution like labor unions, and are, rather, seemingly entirely self-interested like guilds.
It might be a noble thing to shop at Safeway to support these people as an act of charity, but they are not true labor unions. They are simply poorly educated people. One would expect that they would be rather “progressive” in economic matters that benefit themselves but not so progressive in general, and might display a lack of interest in public education or social justice. They might also tend be culturally conservative.
Another awkward hybrid of a labor union and a guild would be airline pilots. Pilots were perhaps one of the most exploited group of workers in the early days of aviation (air mail delivery), whose jobs were extremely dangerous and poorly paying. It could be argued that they have become more than just a classic guild — they have become a millionaire’s club. But they are still genuinely and self-righteously angry and see themselves as exploited. They have the advanced skill set of a guild along with a high income, but they exhibit an intense sense of historical grievance that labor unions often (understandably) possess. This seems to be a peculiarity of human nature that manifests itself sometimes in modern guilds.
It might be important to support labor unions and guilds for different reasons, but these various hybrids of guilds and unions could prove to be dangerous. They remind me of the German National Socialists, with their mix of resentful grievance and self-absorbed tribalism and elitism.