Tyranny of the majority, minority, and media

In theory, I would like to see an affordable, comfortable, convenient ferry service between Hawaii’s islands. In theory, such a ferry is a wonderful idea. I suspect that my thought is in the majority among Hawaii’s citizens.

In reality, I may pass on the opportunity to use Hawaii’s SuperFerry until it becomes a cost effective method to get to Maui, Kauai, or the Big Island, assuming the vessel will even set sail. That is in doubt.

Based on what I’ve seen of SuperFerry’s prices and potential restrictions, fewer Hawaii residents and tourists will use the ferry than were originally projected. Include me on the list of early adopter no-shows.

What happened?

SuperFerry tried to shortcut some of the required processes to launch the service, and convinced enough legislators and the Lingle administration that Hawaii needed a high-speed ferry service. The latter anted up with money and a wink and nod toward restrictive laws. Demonstrations and lawsuits ensued. The courts then ruled that the state needed to conduct an assessment on the environment before SuperFerry could sail.

Government in Hawaii, as is the case elsewhere in the country, has a constitution and laws to prevent a tyranny of the majority. Those same laws often serve as a protection against a similar tyranny of the minority, which appears to be exactly the case with the Hawaii SuperFerry saga.

An important minority, including the Lingle administration, Hawaii’s legislature, and SuperFerry executives, all thought the law requiring an environmental assessment would not stop the ferry, even while an assessment was undertaken.

Another important minority, the courts, ruled otherwise, interpreting the law, which is both their right and obligation, to mean that the environmental assessment needed to be done first. Blame the legislature for part of this mess because they’re the ones who wrote the law in the first place.

Does that mean the whole mess is over and done with? Not quite. The legislature has both the right and obligation to modify state laws if they believe the courts have interpreted their laws incorrectly. In this case, SuperFerry may get another lease on life, at least until the environmental assessment is complete. It’s anyone’s guess as to what will happen then.

Most of the above is business and politics as usual. My cause for concern has to do with tyranny. Laws protect citizens from the so-called tyranny of the majority. Freedom to worship is a good example. So is freedom to speak.

Tyranny of the minority toward the majority has been exercised by a few very small groups loosely known as environmentalists, or activists, working diligently, and thus far, effectively, to prevent SuperFerry from sailing to the neighbor islands.

Most of the arguments against the SuperFerry seem to be environmental in nature. Too many Oahu cars on Kauai or Maui. Invasive species. Whales. On and on it goes. Try applying a little common sense to the arguments and see if you don’t find them wanting.

Cars? More traffic? For the most part, the same number of cars going to any of the neighbor islands will result in a similar number of cars leaving the neighbor islands. The end result is probably a wash. That argument is weak.

Invasive species? Please. Spare me the rhetoric. Ships, cruise ships, military ships, container ships, barges, boats, cars, trucks have been running between the islands for over a century and no one raised much of an eyebrow, and there’s little evidence of inter-island environmental catastrophe anywhere. Another boat or two will matter? Scratch that one from the list.

What’s left? Whales? Are there not laws already in place regarding the requirement to navigate around whales in Hawaiian waters? Sorry, that one doesn’t hold water, either. Move on. Nothing to see here.

How does all that get us to a tyranny of the media (you forgot the headline, right?)? Today’s Honolulu Advertiser carried an online headline which said, “Maui opposes Hawaii SuperFerry bailout.” Oh really?

Yesterday, the Advertiser carried a similar headline, “Kauai opposes Hawaii SuperFerry bailout.” Uh, I’m sorry. I was busy watching all the new fall television shows and I must have missed local news about the referendums on Kauai and Maui. Did neighbor island residents vote to prohibit the state from bailing out the SuperFerry?

No. So how do we know that both Kauai and Maui are opposed to a SuperFerry bailout? Because the Honolulu Advertiser said so. In reality, a few hundred of the vocal minority showed up at a gathering on both islands to voice their opinions about the SuperFerry. Even a few of the less-than-vocal majority showed up, only to be shouted down by the minority, busy exercising their tyrannical rights against the majority’s right to speak.

Meanwhile, our media friends at the Honolulu Advertiser would have us believe that all of Maui, and all of Kauai are dead set against the SuperFerry and especially against any state-sponsored bailout. The online newspaper’s headline probably should have read this way, “Small group of Kauai (or Maui) residents protest SuperFerry bailout.” That just doesn’t sound as exciting, does it?

What we read in the newspapers and see on local television news is only a small reflection of what actually is happening in Hawaii. Even then, the reflection we see is not always accurate. Short of an island-by-island referendum to settle the SuperFerry’s fate in Hawaii, this whole mess has become disgusting and embarrassing and more than a little frightening.

Far too many Hawaii residents are exercising their right to ignore it all.