VOLCANIC ASH

By David Shapiro

Duke Bainum and Mufi Hannemann have been running for mayor of Honolulu for more than two years now, but neither has managed to clearly define himself to O'ahu voters.

This is obvious from the buzz of confusion around town that finds many voters totally perplexed as to whom they'll support in an election just two weeks away.

Bainum and Hannemann have put on a lackluster campaign since they advanced in the Sept. 18 primary, doing little to bring their ideas into sharper focus for voters.

Neither has turned on the electorate by painting a compelling vision for Honolulu's future.

The dilemma facing voters was apparent in a University of Hawai'i classroom last week when the instructor started a discussion of the mayor's race as an exercise in framing arguments.

Most of the students were registered to vote, well-informed and quick to offer opinions.

But almost all of their views expressed what they didn't like about one candidate or the other. When the instructor asked for positive reasons to support each candidate, the silences were long and the lists were short.

"We feel like we're voting for the lesser of two evils," several students complained.

That assessment isn't fair. Neither candidate is evil, and both have plenty of positive qualities.

But Bainum and Hannemann have brought such harsh judgment on themselves with small-time campaigns of empty slogans and cheap shots, with little leadership on display.

There is much to admire in their backgrounds and records. Both men are extremely intelligent — Hannemann graduated from Harvard and Bainum made it through medical school.

They both have long commitment to public service in Hawai'i and quality experience in city government from their time on the Honolulu City Council — Hannemann as council chairman for part of his term and Bainum as chairman of the pivotal budget committee.

Both candidates come from relatively modest beginnings: Hannemann grew up in Kalihi, and Bainum on a farm in Arkansas.

Bainum's family amassed substantial wealth from a motel his parents built with their own hands in a Maryland beach town. Hannemann's family has been a pillar of Hawai'i's Samoan community.

Their failure has been in translating these fine qualities into specific visions of what they believe our city can become and how they propose to lead us there.

Bainum and Hannemann essentially agree on the overriding issue in the contest — getting back to basics to improve roads, sewers and other infrastructure.

That left them to either debate the substance of what kind of city they would build on top of the new infrastructure, or to differentiate themselves primarily on image.

Unfortunately, they went for image and never got much beyond that.

Hannemann portrays himself as a connected local boy, endorsed by most Hawai'i labor unions and some business organizations, as well.

The question among many voters is how much he'll owe these special interests at the public expense if he's elected.

Bainum depicts himself as a fiercely independent politician who has mostly financed his own campaign and is beholden to no special interests.

But his campaign theme of "honest change" leaves unclear exactly who he implies is dishonest.

Hannemann has no record of dishonesty, and if Bainum refers to the contracting scandals dogging Mayor Jeremy Harris, it must be noted that Bainum was a Harris ally on the council.

It's too bad the candidates have given us so little meaningful guidance in deciding our votes, but somebody has to choose the next mayor, and vote we must.

All we can do is go with our best gut feelings about what we value and whom we trust.

David Shapiro, a veteran Hawai'i journalist, can be reached by e-mail at dave@volcanicash.net.