You have to wonder about U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka's strategy in pushing for a vote this year on his bill for Native Hawaiian political recognition despite the certainty of a veto by President Bush if it passes.

It might be wiser to wait until after the election and hope for a Democratic president who is open to resolving indigenous claims of land and sovereignty stemming from the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and U.S. annexation of Hawai'i.

Or least a Republican president who has displayed less personal antagonism toward Native Hawaiians than the incumbent.

What's to gain from a Senate victory on the Akaka bill this year (it's already passed the House) that would be purely symbolic after a Bush veto?

Akaka would have to burn serious political capital with Majority Leader Harry Reid to get floor time for debate and a vote when there are so many other pressing issues before the Senate.

He can't even guarantee the 60 votes needed to stop a likely Republican filibuster, and he'd be in a much stronger position next year if Democrats increase their narrow Senate majority.

If the bill is either defeated in the Senate this year or shot down by a veto, it will be difficult to get it back on the floor in the future with opponents arguing that the matter has already been settled.

A veto would allow Bush and the conservative ideologues in his Justice Department and U.S. Civil Rights Commission to lay down a permanent record of vitriol against Hawaiians that could come into play if the measure is ever passed by Congress and appealed to the courts.

So why pick a fight with Bush that can't be won when Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both say they'd sign the bill, making the road to passage considerably easier next year if one of them is elected president?

Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, is believed to oppose the Akaka bill, but he's not nearly as wed to the ideological conservatives and hasn't displayed the kind of dogmatic animosity against Native Hawaiians as has come from the Bush administration.

Perhaps our Republican Gov. Linda Lingle, who supports the Akaka bill, could be more persuasive with McCain than she's been with Bush — if she hasn't already blown the relationship by waiting to endorse him until long after his nomination was assured.

Hawaiians have been at a similar crossroads before.

The Native Hawaiian sovereignty movement was born in the 1970s after Alaskan natives reached a native claims settlement with the federal government for $962.5 million and more than a tenth of the state's land.

Hawai'i's congressional delegates passed a bill seeking a similar deal for Hawaiians via a study commission at the end of the Carter administration, and the Democratic president appointed a panel that likely would have been very sympathetic to the Hawaiian cause.

But when Republican Ronald Reagan moved into the White House, one of his first acts was to abolish Carter's Hawaiian claims commission.

Instead of letting it go and waiting for a more favorable political climate, the Hawai'i GOP tried to score points with Hawaiians by prevailing on Reagan to appoint a new commission.

He did, but filled it with conservative wonks from federal agencies. Hawaiians lacked the oil card that gave Alaskan natives leverage, and the Reagan panel came to the foregone conclusion that Hawaiians had no legitimate native claims.

The issue has been dead in the water ever since, and pushing the matter this year instead of being patient until the politics change could well have the same result.


David Shapiro, a veteran Hawa'i journalist, can be reached by e-mail at dave@volcanicash.net. His columns are archived at www.volcanicash.net. Read his daily blog at blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com.

David Shapiro, a veteran Hawai'i journalist, can be reached by e-mail at dave@volcanicash.net. His columns are archived at www.volcanicash.net. Read his daily blog at blogs.honoluluadvertiser.com.