Voters need clarity from candidates

The political events of the past few days have altered the landscape even more than campaign-watchers had expected. Locally, voters made consequential decisions in three major primary-election races: the rail-centered contest for the top spot at Honolulu Hale, and the competition for rare openings in the U.S. Senate and House.

In the congressional races especially, more clarity on policy positions is needed from the standard bearers of both parties.

The importance of doing so is twofold: First, party power in each chamber of Congress hangs in the balance, and our delegation’s stands on divisive issues could have considerable influence. Second, recent developments in the presidential race have thrown competing theories about government’s proper role — and how to pay for it — into sharp relief.

Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, named as his running mate U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan. The congressman is primarily known for his conservative ideology on budget issues, particularly social services and tax cuts for the wealthy. This certainly will reframe the campaign encounters with President Barack Obama, who favors a mix of cuts with increased revenues.

The question is: How will it affect the debate locally among the principal candidates for the Hawaii seats? Tulsi Gabbard, the Democrat who won the District 2 primary for Congress, has far more resources than her Republican opponent, Kawika Crowley, but their contest still should occasion a discussion about the fiscal and social policies of their respective parties. The other House contenders, Democrat Colleen Hanabusa and the GOP’s Charles Djou, and senatorial rivals Mazie Hirono and Linda Lingle, have higher profiles but need to deliver detailed prescriptions rather than their usual talking-point generalities in the weeks ahead.

For example: Ryan’s budget proposals include the ideas of converting the defined benefit of Medicare to a "premium support" and reining in the broad reach of the Medicaid plan for the poor by making it a more limited block-grant program for the states. How do Hawaii’s candidates respond to that, and how would they propose attacking government’s skyrocketing health care expenses? How would they resolve the looming shortfalls in Social Security funding? What about proposals to curb defense spending, another mammoth federal cost item?

On social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, the differences between parties similarly have become stark. In congressional races around the country, particularly those in swing districts, contenders are discovering that their own positions on such matters could be consequential, too.

In this election cycle, these things matters even more than usual. Particularly in the Senate, the party that holds the majority will do so with a thin margin. In the House, it seems likely that individual votes will matter more with the convening of the next Congress than they have in many previous sessions. And that individual member of Congress could have a real bargaining chip to play when legislation on both fiscal and social issues come up. It would be useful to know what chips our representatives will lay down.

Ryan’s selection should push the campaign into a debate of foundational issues related to budgets and the role of government. That’s a good thing, a vast improvement over the arm-wrestling match that has been waged in recent accusatory ads from either side.

But that debate needs to resonate in the 50th state as well. Bromides about working in a bipartisan fashion — the usual fodder for campaign ads — won’t do. As this election moves into its final months, the voters deserve more and better information.