Change is scary — but healthy

By Jerry Burris
Advertiser Editorial Editor

Former School Superintendent Paul LeMahieu has been making the rounds recently, telling "his side" of the controversy over the handling of the Felix consent decree, his tenure in office and other matters.

He is primarily interested in giving his version of the events that were the focus of a special legislative investigation. That will appear in due time, in news stories and in his formal response to the committee's very critical draft report, once it is published.

But in addition to what he has to say about his own trials and tribulations, LeMahieu also had some interesting thoughts to offer about the Hawai'i political culture in general. You might argue that his analysis is self-serving, but it is worth considering all the same.

Essentially, LeMahieu says, Hawai'i's political culture is change-averse and unwilling to deal directly with the problems it faces. He uses the phrase "arguments of denial" to describe how those in the political world respond to challenges.

This same culture, he argues, seeks to deal with problems not by solving them, but by attaching blame for the problem on someone else, another agency, another authority, another power. In this culture, he says, if you can shift responsibility for the problem, you have dealt with it.

These are provocative thoughts. And yes, they can be seen as nothing more than an attempt to rationalize LeMahieu's inability to shift the political and bureaucratic culture of the Department of Education and the Legislature to his way of thinking.

But they are also useful to consider as we move forward in a difficult and challenging year. The entire political system will be tested in an election year that will see virtually every office in the state up for grabs. The Legislature will be forced to deal with what is probably the biggest economic challenge Hawai'i has faced since statehood.

How will the political culture deal with all this? Will it engage in arguments of denial or transfer; that is, will it simply try to assign responsibility for our problems elsewhere rather than deal with them directly?

Will candidates for public office focus on finding fault with someone for our current condition rather than offering their own solutions as to how things can be made better?

Will everyone in office or running for office promise change but work primarily on making sure that things are done much as we have always done them?

These are not easy questions. Yes, change is not always for the better. Sometimes, what we have is better than what we would get if we simply tipped everything over. And yes, some of our problems are not of our making — they are someone else's responsibility. Certainly, those terror attacks were beyond our ability control.

But without the courage to accept change and accept responsibility for problems where it is possible, nothing will ever happen. You don't have to be a fan of LeMahieu to accept that message.

One wonders whether anyone will be listening.