PDHblog
This is a place for members of Progressive Democrats of Hawai‘i to express their thoughts
and exasperations about political happenings. The opinions and views are not necessarily
those of PDH's steering committee or membership as a whole.

When I heard that Mike Gabbard wanted to join the Democratic Party of Hawai‘i [HA article], my initial response was to laugh in disbelief. He couldn’t really be serious, right? Then as the reality that he was indeed serious and that it might actually come to fruition hit me, my inclination to laugh was rapidly replaced by disgust. This bothers me on so many different levels, it is difficult to know where to start.

For those that may not remember, Mike Gabbard is perhaps most well known for leading the charge against gay marriage in the late 90’s. An article printed in the Honolulu Weekly in 1999, gives a little background on who Mike Gabbard is. Political memory is short however, so perhaps people only know Mike Gabbard as the recently elected Republican state senator representing the Kapolei area.

Why would someone so vehemently against gay marriage want to join the Democratic Party of Hawai‘i, which has the following as part of its platform?

We affirm:

• That the state should not interfere with couples who choose to marry and share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity;

Could it simply be that he wants to be a part of the majority party so that he can be a more effective legislator? Perhaps he joined the Catholic church for similar political gain, thinking that it would be harder to be elected as a follower of Krishna? Is that a good enough reason for changing political parties?

The rules of the Democratic Party of Hawai‘i state (emphasis is mine):

ARTICLE I - MEMBERSHIP

Section 1. Eligibility. The Democratic Party of Hawai‘i shall be open to all persons who desire to support the Party, who wish to be known as Democrats, and who live in Hawai‘i. [clip]

So, basically, as long as Gabbard says that he will support the Party platform, there is nothing in the rules that would prohibit him from joining the Party. We are under a big tent, as they say, and generally that is a good thing. So why do I care? Because, to me, the Democratic Party is the party that promotes civil rights and equality at all levels. For someone who has made his name spreading hatred and bigotry to become a member of the Democratic Party seems to be a contradiction in terms. Perhaps his tune has changed. Perhaps he really wants to support the principles of the Democratic Party. If so, great. The more, the merrier. I just can’t help but be a bit skeptical.

Let’s break it down a little… 1. What does Gabbard stand to gain from joining the D’s?, 2. What might the D’s gain from embracing Gabbard? 3. What does that mean for the rest of us not privy to those machinations?

1. What Gabbard may stand to gain.
As I mentioned previously, being a part of the majority party may allow Gabbard to be eligible to chair committees and otherwise be a more effective legislator. It would allow him to play ball with the “big boys” where all the action is. Down the road, the party switch may help him stay in office by lending him the “brand value” of having a “D” next to his name in a largely Democratic state. On a more sinister level, perhaps he wants to position himself to be able to fight the push for civil unions from inside the party.

2. What would the Party gain?
Another number on their side, plain and simple. A slap to the Governor for having one of hers switch over? A number to influence one Democratic faction or another? Hard to say really what the benefits would be. At worst it is a power play in political maneuverings, at best it is simply welcoming a new member with open arms. Perhaps somewhere in between.

3. What does it mean to me?
Basically it makes me question what it means to be a Democrat. While always an engaged citizen, I never saw any reason to sign a party card until 2003 when I was working on the Dennis Kucinich for President campaign. At that time, I felt that the principles that Kucinich was pushing for within the party made it worth it to work within the party myself. Since then I have been actively involved in party activities and have worked to recruit others like myself into the party. With Mike Gabbard, who has social views that are a polar opposite to mine, as a Democrat, I feel that I will lose all credibility with my associates that were skeptical of the party already. How big is this tent we are under? Is it wide enough to hold all of us? Are there set values that determine whether one is a Democrat or a Republican? Typically I think so, but right now I am not so sure.