As the 2026 election cycle enters its final weeks of campaigning, the issue of “politics” and “elections” has taken on a serious tone.

With State Constitutional amendments, Honolulu City Charter amendments, as well as the choosing of candidates for office on the ballot, campaigns for all are working hard to create a convincing closing argument that their idea, man or woman, is a better choice than the alternative.

And for those who are “in it to win it”, joking about any of this stuff is verboten.

So thank goodness for the Hawaiʻi Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. On Saturday, the 24th of October, a gathering of journalists and media professionals took place at Murphyʻs Bar and Grille in Chinatown to bring back the essence of a long-cherished event – Gridiron Hawaiʻi.

The title of it harkened back to the past, but identified the present – “SPJ Follies – Gridiron Survivors and Wannabes.”

Gridiron, for those political pundit veterans, was an evening where media professionals from across the industry – from TV to print to even the political consultancy would come together on stage at Diamond Head Theater to perform skits parodying the issues of the day and the people involved in it.

At its height, it was a hot ticket to get because it would sell out so quickly. Getting a seat was a bit like winning the lottery. Attending Gridiron gave the community an opportunity to have a laugh and see the issues of the day in a less-serious light.

The event ended with the outbreak of COVID, and it never came back. There was always talk about bringing it back, but the opportunity and the shifting tides in media kept that wish out of reach.

But thanks to SPJ leaders like Stirling Morita, the current SPJ Hawaiʻi President, and others on the committee, including Emmy Award-winning news director Janice Gin; Denby Fawcett, a longtime journalist and current columnist for Civil Beat; and Lynette Lo Tom, a former TV reporter, Star-Advertiser food writer, and now owner of Bright Light Marketing, the event was brought back to life.

Its return was more than just showing videos of the past and using that as the whole performance. Instead, veteran performers spanning from Lance Rae (Executive VP, TLC PR) to Chad Blair (Civil Beat) to Cathy Foy (veteran entertainer) took to the stage to provide a humorous look at various political stories that have happened in Hawaiʻi in 2026.

Those stories included Ben Guiterrez (HNN) playing the role of hapless State Chief Election Officer Scott Nago, shaking an oversized lauhala box, filled with two oversized “eggs” that were the main tools used to break the ties in two Republican legislative races that tied up during the primary.

Even a former Governor made an appearance, in the form of, of course, another key player – Dan Cooke (HNN, formerly of KITV) playing the role of Linda Lingle. This performance was truly tongue-in-cheek when, at one point, “Lingle” compared her administration and Lt. Governor to that of the situation with the current Lt. Governor (Sylvia Luke, who is on leave), saying that she didnʻt have a LG who was mired in scandal.

Talking about elected officials, current Governor Josh Green also made an appearance, through the talent of Keoki Kerr (Hawaiʻi State Teachers Assn. Director of Communications), in which the skit was narrated through a play on the song “Jolene” by Dolly Parton.

There was even a skit – portrayed as a Hawaiʻi Public Radio piece – in which Catherine Cruz (Hawaiʻi Public Radio) interviewed a Monk Seal who had a rock thrown at it by a tourist on Maui, a turtle (honu), a chicken who stated that they were indigenous to Hawaiʻi, and a peacock at the end, played by Chad Blair. All talked about the fuss made over the issue and their take on it.

Finally, we hear the animals’ point of view! And it was hilarious!

All performances aside, which were on-the-nose topic-wise, the event was designed as a fundraiser first and foremost of all. As with Gridiron being a fundraiser for the Society of Professional Journalists Hawaiʻi Chapter for itʻs internship program, this event reinvigorated that fundraiser to give more young people the chance to work in journalism.

There were lucky draws, a silent auction, a sold-out bake sale, and even some last-minute auctioneering of items, to the surprise of this blogger, Maleko McDonnell (United Public Workers Communications, formerly from KITV). Again, all to fundraise for journalist internships.

Although the journalism industry has changed and shrunk over the years, with new forms of media coming into the fold (including this blog, Politics Hawaii), one thing has not changed. There is still plenty of material out there to poke fun at – elections, scandals, and even the occasional absurdity of politics itself.

And it’s performances like this that, to this blogger, are more needed than ever. Because it’s important that we have the ability to laugh at things, taking the issues of the day apart and portraying them in a more humorous light.

Political satire allows us to poke fun at our elected officials, the decisions they make, and sometimes the absurdities of the political process itself. It doesn’t mean the issues are any less serious. Rather, it gives us a different way of looking at them, taking some of the sharp edges off discussions that can, at times, feel very starchy and maybe a bit too blunt for regular people to digest.

Yes, there is a place for the serious stuff, and since the last Gridiron, there has certainly been no shortage of serious issues for people to argue about. But we also need room to laugh at the political process, the personalities involved, and perhaps even ourselves for taking some of this stuff so seriously.

Because sometimes, laughing at politics helps us put it all into perspective.

The ballots for Hawaiʻi’s November 3 General Election are now making their way into mailboxes across the state, and with them comes the familiar talk from different political circles that this could finally be the year Hawaiʻi changes.

Having watched Hawaiʻi politics over the years, and the events that have shaped its political landscape, this blogger asks: Is there really a political revolution brewing in Hawaiʻi, or is this just another election cycle where the hopes for change are running ahead of the political realities on the ground?

After all, Hawaiʻi has experienced political revolutions before.

The Democratic Revolution of 1954 fundamentally changed who held political power in the islands, while the Republican resurgence of the late 1990s, culminating in Linda Lingle’s election as governor in 2002, demonstrated that even Hawaiʻi’s Democratic establishment was not politically untouchable.

But neither of those changes happened overnight, nor did they happen simply because voters were unhappy with those in power.

Instead, there were political, economic, and social forces at work, along with years of organizing, coalition building, and candidates who could reach beyond an opposition party’s traditional supporters.

So, as voters begin filling out their ballots in 2026, the question worth asking is whether those same conditions exist today. Because wanting a political revolution and having the political machinery, candidates, and public support to actually pull one off are two very different things.

To understand what a political revolution looks like, weʻll need to go back to the one that Hawaiʻi is still living under – the 1954 Democratic Revolution.

FOR DECADES, Hawaiʻi’s political and economic power rested largely with the Republican establishment, closely tied to the Big Five plantation interests. But beneath that political structure, change had been building for years.

Returning Japanese American veterans of World War II, organized labor, and a growing generation of residents who wanted a greater say in how Hawaiʻi was governed began organizing politically. Under leaders such as John A. Burns, the Democratic Party was building something more substantial than an opposition to those already in power.

It was building a political movement.

By the time voters went to the polls in November 1954, the political groundwork had already been laid. The Democrats captured both chambers of the Territorial Legislature, ending decades of Republican legislative dominance and fundamentally changing the direction of Hawaiʻi politics.

The important thing to understand is that 1954 was not simply an election in which voters decided they had enough of Republicans. It culminated years of organizing, developing candidates, building alliances, and bringing voters into the political process who had previously lacked meaningful political influence.

The revolution happened at the ballot box, but the work that made it possible had been going on for years.

FAST FORWARD FOR NEARLY HALF A CENTURY, and Hawaiʻi would see another challenge to its established political order. This time, however, it would be the Republicans attempting to do what the Democrats had accomplished in 1954.

By the late 1990s, the Democratic Party had controlled Hawaiʻi’s governorship since statehood, and the Republicans were beginning to show signs that they could actually challenge that dominance.

In 1998, Republican Linda Lingle came within 5,254 votes of defeating incumbent Governor Ben Cayetano. While Lingle lost that election, the results demonstrated something that Republicans had not been able to accomplish in decades: make a statewide race for governor genuinely competitive.

But Lingle did not simply disappear after that loss. Instead, she took over the leadership of the Hawaiʻi Republican Party and began the work of building a political organization capable of competing with the Democrats, not just for the governor’s office, but for seats in the Legislature as well.

And the results began to show.

In the 2000 election, Republicans captured 19 seats in the 51-member State House of Representatives, a remarkable accomplishment for a party that had spent decades struggling to gain a meaningful foothold in the Legislature.

For the first time in years, the Republicans were demonstrating that they could do more than put forward a candidate for governor. They were developing candidates, organizing campaigns, and convincing voters in individual legislative districts to give them a chance.

Then came 2002. Lingle returned to the gubernatorial race and defeated then Lt. Governor Mazie Hirono, becoming Hawaiʻi’s first Republican governor in 40 years.

It was a historic victory, but it was not a sudden political earthquake that came out of nowhere. Like the Democratic Revolution of 1954, the groundwork had been laid years before voters cast their ballots.

There was also another element to the political environment of the time. The Broken Trust controversy surrounding Bishop Estate had raised serious questions about the relationships between Hawaiʻi’s political establishment and some of its most powerful institutions. Combined with economic concerns and growing dissatisfaction with the status quo, the political environment was changing.

But even with Lingle’s victory, Hawaiʻi did not suddenly become a Republican state. Democrats maintained control of the Legislature, and the Republican gains in the House did not translate into a permanent shift in legislative power.

Following the 2000 election, Republicans held 22 seats between the House and Senate. By the time the Legislature convened in 2011, following Lingle’s departure from office, that number had fallen to just nine. And following the 2016 election, Republicans found themselves completely shut out of the State Senate, with Democrats holding all 25 seats for the next two years.

While Lingle’s election represented a significant political breakthrough for Hawaiʻi Republicans, it was not the kind of lasting political realignment that the Democrats accomplished in 1954. The Republicans had demonstrated that they could win the governorship, but sustaining that political momentum across the Legislature proved to be another matter.

AND THAT BRINGS US TO 2026.

Today, political opinion abounds. And there is certainly no shortage of people expressing frustration with the status quo and predicting that a political wave, regardless of its color, is about to sweep away Hawaiʻi’s established political order.

But before accepting the predictions of a political wave in 2026, we need to ask whether the conditions that brought about political change in the past are actually present today.

Certainly, Hawaiʻi has no shortage of issues that frustrate voters. The high cost of living, housing shortages, homelessness, and questions about government accountability have given residents plenty of reasons to be dissatisfied with those holding political power.

But dissatisfaction alone does not create a political revolution.

As we saw in 1954, and to a different extent during Linda Lingle’s rise to the governorship in 2002, political change required more than people simply wanting something different. It took years of organizing, developing candidates, building relationships with voters, and creating a political movement capable of turning public frustration into electoral success.

So where are those elements in 2026? Are we seeing new groups of voters becoming politically engaged? Are candidates emerging who can attract support beyond their traditional political bases? And perhaps most importantly, have the political organizations seeking to challenge Hawaiʻi’s established leadership built the groundwork necessary to make lasting change possible?

Because there is a difference between talking about political change and actually building the movement necessary to bring it about.

We’ll begin seeing what voters think when the first election results come in on November 3. But as Hawaiʻi’s political history reminds us, winning an election and fundamentally changing the political direction of the state are not necessarily the same thing.

So, what do you think? Are the conditions for another political revolution taking shape in Hawaiʻi, or are we hearing another round of election-year predictions? Share your thoughts by email or on the Politics Hawaiʻi Facebook page. This blogger would be interested in hearing how you see it.

---

Sources and References

• Boylan, Dan, and T. Michael Holmes. John A. Burns: The Man and His Times. University of Hawaiʻi Press, 2000. University of Hawaiʻi Press. Historical background on John A. Burns, organized labor, Japanese American veterans, and the Democratic Revolution of 1954.
• Densho Encyclopedia. Revolution of 1954. Densho Encyclopedia. Historical account of the political organizing and alliances that led to Democratic control of the Territorial Legislature.
• State of Hawaiʻi, Office of Elections. Official Election Results, 1998, 2000, and 2002. Hawaiʻi Election Archives. Certified election results documenting Linda Lingle’s gubernatorial campaigns and legislative election outcomes.
• State of Hawaiʻi, Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism. The State of Hawaii Data Book 2016, Table 8.13, “Party Membership of the State Legislature: 1987 to 2017.” View Historical Legislative Data (PDF). Historical figures on Republican and Democratic representation in the Legislature.
• Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Broken Trust: The Bishop Estate Articles, 1997–2005. Historical News Archive. Original reporting and documentation of the Bishop Estate controversy.

This blogger has been meaning to write an article for a while: the dance between the press and the President of the United States.

With Donald Trump returning to the White House, and his love-hate-kinda-love-be-totally-hostile relationship with the media that covers him, this blogger has had a theory that what we are watching isn’t entirely a first-time thing.

In other words, the love-hate relationship between the President and the press did not start with Donald Trump. It goes back generations.

It is also something Politics Hawaiʻi with Stan Fichtman has been watching closely, because examining governmental power requires the ability of the press to observe, question, and report on those exercising it.

With that, this article came back to life in a very pointed way over the past week when Trump banned reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House.

Other major television networks responded to the ban by suspending their pooled coverage of the President; the three news organizations went to court, and a federal judge temporarily ordered their White House access restored.

Suddenly, the sometimes uneasy relationship between the White House and the press had moved from words to the White House gates and into a federal courtroom. But while the current confrontation may seem extraordinary, the underlying tension between the Presidency and the press is not entirely new.

To understand that, we need to go back nearly a century, to the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt — FDR.

FDR had lost the ability to walk unaided after contracting polio in 1921. He relied upon a wheelchair in private and, for public appearances, leg braces, a cane, and the assistance of another person to give the appearance that he could walk. Yet Americans rarely saw that reality.

Roosevelt carefully managed how his disability was presented to the public. He asked photographers not to photograph him being helped from automobiles, maneuvering himself, or otherwise appearing physically dependent. The White House and Secret Service helped enforce those restrictions, while most members of the press went along with them.

There was what the FDR Presidential Library today describes as a “gentlemen’s understanding” with the press that photographs displaying Roosevelt’s disability would not be published. As a result, only a handful of candid photographs of him in his wheelchair survive.

The arrangement was a combination of White House image management and a level of deference from the press that would be almost unimaginable today. Yet, for the most part, its enforcement was informal. Journalists generally complied without being threatened with legal or regulatory punishment. And reporters were not being removed from the White House because their coverage displeased the President.

Now one can ask, “Why did the press go along with it?”

Part of the answer lies in the journalistic and social norms of the time. Disability was viewed much differently in the 1930s and 1940s, and Roosevelt had strong political reasons for wanting Americans to see him as physically capable of handling the Presidency. The press, operating under very different standards than it does today, largely accommodated him.

During World War II, concerns about national unity and security added another dimension to the relationship between the White House and the press. But the accommodation surrounding Roosevelt’s disability had begun long before the war.

Well, if we overlay the recent actions of the White House and the media with what happened in Roosevelt’s time, the words may not repeat, but there is some very distinct rhyming.

Take the war in Iran.

The Trump administration has pushed back against reporting that challenges its presentation of the war, including reporting about U.S. munitions and military readiness. Indeed, reporting on the Iran war was among the examples the White House cited in defending its decision to revoke the credentials of CNN, MS NOW and Politico.

We also don’t live in the 1940s. The social norms of today have changed, journalism has changed, and the press’s understanding of its responsibility to scrutinize those in power has changed with them.

So perhaps what we are watching is not an entirely new struggle between a President and the press. Instead, we are watching an old struggle recalibrated for the times in which we live.

So instead of an informal agreement over what the press would or would not cover, the relationship today has become much more direct: report the story in a way the White House finds objectionable, and access to the President may become part of the fight.

The desired outcome may rhyme with the past. The way of getting there certainly does not.

To this blogger, the old arrangement had its own problems. By agreeing not to show certain things, the press helped create an incomplete picture of the President for the American public. Going to today, the effort to control that picture is having a very different result.

Instead of compliance, it has produced resistance from other news organizations, lawsuits from those being excluded, and intervention from a federal court. Which maybe leads us to see that the struggle between the President and the press hasn’t changed as much as we think.

Maybe what has changed is that nobody agrees to the rules anymore. The gentlemen’s agreement is gone, and both the White House and the press are now fighting over who gets to set the terms.

---

Research Note: This article draws upon records and historical material from the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, along with contemporary news reporting and court-related coverage concerning the current dispute between the Trump administration and CNN, MS NOW, and Politico.