Bipartisanship not so terrible

In Hawaii and other states where a single political party has dominated government for so long, it’s not surprising that the notion of breaching the partisan divide would unsettle the powers that be, in the state House of Representatives and beyond.

It’s uncertain how this will play out until after state House Democrats meet in private caucus this afternoon to hammer out some kind of agreement over leadership.

But if some measure of the bipartisan proposal now on the table survives, it could be a healthy development for those of us outside the Legislature looking in. This can happen only if the preoccupation with party labels at the state Capitol can give way to substance, to a clear-eyed analysis of how legislation, on balance, serves the larger public.

That is a very big "if," of course — some might call it a naive hope — because those same clear eyes can see how much politics, rather than substance, drove the upheaval to begin with.

The current eruption began with rumblings about a challenge to the longstanding House leadership of Speaker Calvin Say. Gathering up the votes, and finding someone to carry the banner for such a reorganization, can be a heavy political lift.

In the end, House Rep. Joe Souki, formerly the speaker, emerged with a coalition of 25 dissenting Democrats and all seven Republicans willing to support his return to the top office. Say has stepped down, but 18 loyalists to the old leadership are lining up behind one of Say’s lieutenants, Rep. Marcus Oshiro.

Everyone had his or her own motivation for realigning loyalties. Surely the full mix of personal spats, ideological differences and political ambitions were in play, not the least of which was the goal in this wrestling match over the speakership to gain the agenda-setting power that comes with it.

Ultimately, Souki’s game plan required commitments to place GOP members in committee vice chairmanships, which seems to be a first for the House (the state Senate has had brief flirtations with bipartisanship). The very idea has upset some Democratic leaders, past and present.

Perhaps most noteworthy among them is former Gov. George Ariyoshi, a veteran of such political battles during his own years as a lawmaker. He called the coalition "terrible," a plan that "frustrates the desires of Hawaii’s people who gave Democrats a huge majority in the House."

We differ with the former governor on this point. Clearly the Democrats who were elected in large numbers did so because their voters preferred them, as individual candidates, to any of their opponents. It is not evident, however, that constituents did so out of a collective wish for an overwhelming majority.

Further, the Republican House members were elected in their own right, and their voters’ choice ought to mean something, too.

The fact that so many Democrats were willing to entertain such a plan underscores just how nebulous the lines defining the two major parties really are. There are a number of Democrats serving in the House who, in almost any other state, probably would be Republicans, based on a more conservatism where spending is concerned.

Ariyoshi worries that the majority won’t be able to get its business done because it would be hard to find common ground on a bipartisan basis. But in this economically tenuous era, with looming shortfalls in pensions, health care and other underfunded mandates, there is in fact a lot of shared desire for fiscal responsibility, selective areas for investment and a focus on core government services.

That is the agenda we would support, regardless of party. If GOP members get a few more minutes at the microphone to offer their competing points of view, that should not be a worrisome thing.