The battle for the White House has unveiled some striking similarities between the US and Taiwan and their current states of democratic development. Voters in both countries are deeply divided along the lines of those who love and hate their current administrations and by extreme irrational views. Such intense divisions highlight the serious problems both systems of government now face and the pressing need for constitutional reform.
Ironically, these similarities became clearer when 11 reporters from Asia, as part of the East-West Center's Jefferson Fellowship Program, observed a presidential debate -- not between US President George W. Bush and challenger Senator John Kerry, but rather the first debate of the 1960 US presidential election, between Republican candidate Richard Nixon and Democratic Senator John F. Kennedy.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
History repeats
The most surprising thing about that debate was the string of attacks Kennedy made against Nixon -- they were almost identical to comments made in this year's race.
Kennedy attacked Nixon for letting the economy slide and for letting the unemployment rate rise to its highest level in history. He also attacked Nixon's Vietnam policy.
Kennedy said: "The country is already divided, and I want to reunite America again."
Nixon, however, called on the American people to support a strong leader to take them through difficult times.
In this year's race, Kerry and Bush have made comments so similar that it seems like the race is reenacting the 1960 election.
On the surface, the two elections may seem the same because of domestic and international circumstances.
Roots of division
The real question, however, is this: What is the key source of this division? Is it due to the Bush administration's war on Iraq, or is it the differences between the basic positions of the two parties (on abortion, gay marriage, the federal deficit and healthcare, for example)? Or is it the difference between the character and upbringing of each of the candidates? Or perhaps a little bit of everything?
To try to find that answer, over the past month the journalists traveled to Hawaii, Washington, Boston, Austin and Crawford, Texas, as well as Los Angeles to meet with party representatives, the media and local officials. The group also held talks with leading think tanks and political observers.
It has become increasingly clear from these meetings that voters who gradually turned a cold shoulder to politics over the past 30 years were now actively and aggressively participating in politics.
"More than 90 percent of registered voters had already decided six months to a year ago which candidate they would support," said John Fortier, a research associate with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).
Fortier said that with few people occupying middle ground, the problem now is that while more than 90 percent of the public feels that Bush is a "consistent and strong leader," at least 50 percent still do not like him.
The political divide has become so pervasive that it is eating into relationships. Lynn Cooksey, executive director of the International Hospitality Council in Austin, said that the situation there is so serious that "even couples are in a cold war because they support different candidates, friends get into fights because of differing opinions, and strangers curse at others when they hear them mention the name of a candidate they do not like."
People in Taiwan can relate to such circumstances -- witness the animosity that has been building between the pan-blue and pan-green camps over the last three years, culminating in March's presidential election and the protests that followed it.
Unresolved debate
The divide that the American public feels today is almost the same divide that Taiwan is facing. The main sources of division are not differences in the stance of a candidate or a party. Rather, it is lingering debate over past election results, and the fact that nearly half of those who voted did not support the final outcome. Such deep-seated opposition has gradually turned into disgust with the leadership of both countries. It has spread everywhere, gradually eroding sensible debate, with feelings coming to a head during the presidential election campaigns.
Take religion, for example. In the past, Taiwan's religious leaders rarely showed their political colors and distanced themselves from political parties. However, during this year's elections, one influential Buddhist master declared support for the opposition candidate. Once that happened, candidates made a point of visiting every temple to burn incense and
worship there. Candidates even volunteered to help out at Christian churches as well.
In the US, many academics and political commentators have noted that religion has played a much more important role in this election than in the past, even though neither Kerry nor Bush has put forward any position at odds with the traditional views of their parties.
Bush, for example, has voiced opposition to the legalization of gay marriage and to abortion. Kerry, on the other hand, has expressed sympathy toward homosexuals and a belief that abortion is "a decision between the doctor and a woman."
Karlyn Bowman, resident fellow and public opinion section editor of the AEI, said that after the 2000 elections a broad range of public surveys highlighted a growing complexity and confusion among Americans when it came to religious issues. While a growing number of people believes that abortion is murder, an increasing number also believes that abortion is a decision that should be left to doctor and patient.
"Surveys also revealed that individuals who frequently go to church or at least go to church twice a month support the Republican Party and will vote for Bush, while individuals who never go to church or go to church once a month are more likely to support the Democratic Party and vote for Kerry," Bowman said.
But more than church
attendance, it is an individual candidate's expression of faith that has had an impact on voters, Bowman said.
"During the last election, Bush told the story of how his faith in religion had helped him quit drinking, work through his family problems and even how his faith had given him strength to make policy decisions," she said.
Although Bush did not say that it was God who helped him make decisions, he did stress that his strong faith helped assure him he was making the right decision, she added.
"His opponents note, however, that according to the US Constitution there should be a separation between religion and state. When Bush stressed his individual faith and its impact on his political experience, it raised fears that he would be taking the country down a more extreme-right political path, and have a negative impact on the right of freedom of religion, blurring the lines between politics and the church," Bowman added.
Anthony Corrado, a visiting fellow in the governance studies program of the Brookings Institute said that Bush's expression of his religious beliefs was a form of religious mobilization.
"So Senator Kerry also read the Bible to display his faith during the third TV debate," he said.
Thus, Bush and Kerry's views on religion were just a continuation of the same approach that has been used by the Democratic and Republican parties over the past decade. The real impact on voters was Bush's personality, which gave those who already detested him in the 2000 elections even more reason to criticize him.
Similar views
Both candidates' views toward the "war on terror" and the war in Iraq are another example of how they may seem to hold exactly opposite views, but actually hold more or less the same position.
Even opinion writers who are resolutely opposed to Bush, and who believe that if Kerry becomes president he will do a better job of handling terrorism, could not clearly say "what it is that Kerry would ultimately do."
One of the biggest newspapers in Kerry's hometown of Boston, the Boston Globe, which has backed Kerry, believes that Kerry will be more reasonable with the international community, seek their support and not take unilateral action.
In Austin, however, the Austin American-Statesman, a newspaper that openly supports Bush, wrote an editorial recently entitled: "We really doubt [Kerry will do what he says]."
Brad Bumsted, state capitol reporter for the Pittsburgh Tribute-Review, which also endorsed Bush, said that it is difficult for people in other nations and for the foreign media to understand just how the American public feel about the terrorist attacks and their demands of their president.
"The foreign media believes that the difference between Kerry and Bush is that one would launch a war and the other would not. But Kerry has never said that he would not launch a war, he has only stressed that he would fight a smarter, more efficient war and that he would try to get more countries to support the war on terror," Bumsted said.
"The American public's opinions of the two candidates is based on `how the two candidates would handle the war in Iraq,' not which [candidate] would not attack Iraq. Even if [former president Bill] Clinton had been president over the past four years, or Kerry, neither of them could guarantee that they would not have sent troops into Iraq," Bumsted said.
A close race
In the final opinion polls before voters cast their ballots, the difference between the two candidates was still within the margin of error, and the media was stepping up coverage of the possibility of disputes erupting over the validity of ballots.
If there are problems with the results of the election, and if the disputes are similar to those experienced in Florida in the 2000 election, how will the American public react? Will the US' system of government once again face a crisis?
In Taiwan's elections in March, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was re-elected with a margin of only 30,000 votes, or just over 0.2 percent. His narrow re-election sparked protests from opposition parties, who immediately began to question the vote process and accuse the ruling party of cheating. Opposition lawmakers, and even some academics, accused election workers and local government officials of cheating -- ballots cast by deceased people were alleged to have been found.
Because of this, the opposition filed a lawsuit challenging the results of the election, arguing it should be annulled and demanding that a recount be held. The recount began shortly after the elections and has continued since. No incidence of voter fraud has been uncovered, however. Taiwan's High Court is expected to announce the results of the case later this week.
To a Taiwanese observer, a closer look at the different voting systems from state to state in the US reveals shocking variation.
In some states, voters have already participated in an "early vote," in which voters mail in absentee ballots prior to election day. Ballots are handled differently in each state, and voting procedures from county to county within each state vary wildly. Some counties even have two ways of voting.
Voters are also given much more latitude when it comes to their ballots.
"We allow voters to scribble on their ballots. Some voters write a whole mess of opinions on the back of their ballot and even draw pictures. As long as we can tell which candidate they have voted for, then the vote is still valid," Texas Secretary of State Geoffrey Conner said.
Conner noted that those voters who are not very well educated sometimes need the help of volunteers to help them cast their ballots.
In the end these people can sometimes be misled to vote for a certain candidate without even knowing it.
Constitutional change
AEI research associate John Fortier says that increasing numbers of voters and academics support a re-examination of the Constitution and a revamping of electoral procedures, including the design of ballots and regulations regarding how votes are counted.
However, this is nearly impossible given the inherent obstacles contained in the Constitution, not the least the relative degree of power afforded to the states.
Although the results of the election will soon be clear, what may follow -- attempting to heal wounds the rift between the two political poles have created and uniting the nation -- may take even longer.
How will the new president handle these problems that Taiwan is also facing but cannot solve? If election day is very much like that of four years ago, and drags on to become "election month," how will the American people respond to their constitutional crisis?
This is the process that Taiwan needs to open its eyes to, watch and learn.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS