This is disturbing, very disturbing. You didn’t vote, even though you sort of promised you would.We saw unprecedented voter registrations this year, especially among Democrats caught up in what is being called “Obama-mania.” That seemed great, and signaled (promised, to me, at least) an expectation of good voter turnout numbers. And, if Democrats were that fired up, surely there would be a corresponding resistance movement from Hawai‘i’s smaller major party, the Republicans. None of it happened. In Maui County, only 25.5 percent of registered voters went to the polls. That means, 61,375 registered Maui voters just registered because… because… well, I don’t know why. Normally, we think of registering as a prelude to voting. I guess there were a lot of super-cute voter registration helpers, or something equally non-political involved.
I am ashamed of Maui. What about you?
Other counties should be ashamed of themselves, too, but every one of them beat Maui. In the City and County of Honolulu, 37.1 percent of registered voters voted; in Hawai‘i County, 41.7 percent voted; and in Kauai County, nearly half, 46.1 percent of those who registered either went to the polls or voted absentee in one form or another.
How Did One Fourth of Maui Vote?
In effect, three-quarters of registered voters “voted” that elections don’t matter by not voting.
The opinions of Maui’s paltry little corps of 21,047 voters—15 percent of the total 2006 population—tells us that those who vote are in no mood to throw any rascals out. Everyone is grumbling, but they are not choosing to change anything. If what we wanted to see was incumbents secure in office and challengers rebuffed, we should be celebrating. The message to office holders is, “Never mind the grumbling. Keep on keepin’ on.” Clearly, those who vote are very happy with government at the county and state levels, just the way it is. Very soon, we’ll see if the presidential election inspires anything different.
Meantime, very, very few Maui adults have reserved their right to complain about government, no matter what the administration or council may choose to do.
Speaking of the Presidential Election…
Recent economic news has been very challenging, and at the same time, very focusing for the presidential candidates. As I write, on Sept. 26, it looks like the United States is about to “nationalize” the financial industry, at least the debts and losses, and at least temporarily, at a cost of up to one-and-a-half-trillion dollars ($700 billion now, the rest already spent).
Just about every presidential election, by the time we get to vote, comes down to the question of money, and how it is to be spent, tightened, loosened, saved or “grown.” That is to say, as advisor James Carville taught Bill Clinton to repeat as often as possible, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Running against Bush the First, everyone knew Clinton couldn’t possibly win. So said all the pundits. After all, Bush had a glorious war in the Middle East, and America wasn’t likely to throw out a successful war president.
Sixteen years later, the situation is not identical, but there are interesting similarities: a Bush in the White House then and now, trouble with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq said to be settled (two very different ways), war in the Middle East, tensions with Russia and lots of other echoes. And, again, it’s the economy (stupid). The big difference is that the economic trouble this time is so extreme—reaching to the highest levels of wealth and finance—that both candidates have had to change their campaigns.
McCain has had to retract and redefine his briefly favored slogan, “The fundamentals of the U.S. economy are sound.” Obama can no longer refer to the economy only in generalities or details—now or never. They’re both senators. They’re going to have to sign one side of the ledger or the other (maybe done by the time you read this), and that will tell us exactly where they stand. What did they do to promote the bailout that Newt Gingrich called “un-Republican”? What did each support or resist? What did they add to it for Main Street, meaning you and me and our loved ones? Did they find a way to finance the bailout that didn’t have direct tax costs for ordinary Americans?
I won’t comment on their early reactions to the financial collapses of the week of Sept. 13–20 and its aftermath. It can’t be done without sounding partisan, and having every reader convinced that I am on the other end of the political spectrum from himself/herself. Work up your own comments, but don’t miss this chance to find out about the guts, the intelligence and the policies of both candidates in a raw, no-spin way by watching them handle this real-life crisis while also conducting a presidential campaign.
No matter what, the outcome of this mess is going to mean a much bigger government with much bigger debts. Some approaches are more like temporary fixes in an emergency, some more nearly Socialistic and permanent. All outcomes are going to be given plenty of spin and “interpretation,” but you get to see the raw product played out in the news. Try reading the international press online, and a few big city papers… and the local press and broadcast reports of “solutions” and the statements made about them.
Be your own investigative reporter. It’s easier than any journalist would like to admit these days.