Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Hawaii’s World
IS Bill Clinton a good president, even though we know he's not a moral man? Probably yes. He likely also will be seen in the future as a president who had a lot of luck. Clinton has been lucky
It appears he will leave behind an America more prosperous than ever before, and one that has avoided major war even though this onetime legal evader of the military draft has called out the armed forces more times than any predecessor.
A strong case can be made that our current prosperity took off from policies set under his predecessor, George Bush.
But like an embryo, the economic growth by the time of the 1992 election wasn't big enough to be seen. Clinton thus could get away from the early focus on Bush's success in the Gulf War to make a domestic issue he capsulized as "It's the economy, stupid."
Areas where Clinton clearly has made a difference include:
Getting us into the North American Free Trade Agreement despite opposition from union labor.
He at least hasn't worsened the Mideast situation and he has maintained a steady hand toward Russia during its turmoil.
I think he has been right to fend off congressional assaults on choice for abortion and on Oregon's approval of doctor-assisted death.
My instinct for a moderate, moral Republican in the White House runs up against a fear George W. Bush would yield to right-to-life lobby intrusions on personal privacy and choice. He might even encourage them by his Supreme Court choices.
If luck is a big element in Clinton's success, will it continue for our next president? Will our staggering trade imbalance eventually drag our economy down?
Will that, or other causes, set inflation afire once again?
We don't know what specific international threats will galvanize the next president, or whether he will stumble into trouble, even war, through lack of diplomatic skill. Trouble can come from very unexpected corners -- or even from the areas we now see simmering.
OFTEN I minimize the significance of my single vote, wherever it may fall. But then I remember the election of 1960, Hawaii's first chance to participate in electing a president.
Richard Nixon, the Republican nominee, opened his "New Frontiers" campaign with appearances soon after his nomination in the new states of Alaska and Hawaii. John F. Kennedy never did visit.
The crowds for Nixon were ecstatic with the attention. As of August, he seemed sure to carry Hawaii. Even Big Labor in the form of the ILWU supported him.
But times change. Nixon's televised debates with the vibrant, appealing Democratic nominee, Kennedy, eroded his image here and elsewhere.
In the election night counting in Hawaii, Nixon beat Kennedy by 141 votes. But Democrats turned up discrepancies in some precincts and finally got the whole state recounted under court supervision. The process took until late December. It showed Nixon the loser by 115 votes -- 92,410 to 92,295. It was the first statewide recount since the post-Civil War era and came in our second year as a state.
At the time, we had only three electoral votes versus four now. But these three could have tipped the balance in the electoral college to Nixon had not Illinois dropped into the Kennedy column in a very close tally.
The moral: Every vote does count.
A.A. Smyser is the contributing editor
and former editor of the the Star-Bulletin
His column runs Tuesday and Thursday.