What cost the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) the Dec. 3 elections? Recently, President Chen Shui-bian (
Premier Frank Hsieh (
Were Hsieh's comments correct? Well, they were not wrong, but they are only partially right. According to some news reports, DPP opinion polls conducted after the elections show that, based on the numbers of votes for the pan-blue and pan-green camps in last year's presidential election, 92 percent of pan-blue voters voted for the pan-blue camp's candidates this time, while only 71 percent of pan-green voters voted for the pan-green camp's candidates again. The high turnout rate of the pan-blue camp's supporters was certainly a result of the Ma phenomenon.
But how can Hsieh explain the low turnout rate of the pan-green camp's own supporters? Can the Ma phenomenon possibly have caused this? The DPP's defeat was a result of its supporters' disenchantment, far more than the Ma phenomenon.
So an important lesson is that the DPP actually lost the elections because its supporters did not vote. In other words, the party lost miserably by failing to satisfy its own supporters. It is thus evident that the DPP's fate lies in the stability of its support base. Once its base becomes shaky, there is little that the moderates can do to help -- and it's not clear how many "swing" voters exist anyway.
Where does the DPP have an advantage? Last year's presidential election provides an example. The party received at least 1.5 million votes more than it earned in the previous presidential election, and won the battle thanks in large part to the 228 Hand-in-Hand Rally. This event clearly demonstrated the party's comparative advantage. If it can continue to build on this advantage, then it will be able to hold the mainstream position.
Some DPP politicians peddle the myth of the "middle way." The biggest contradiction in Taiwan is national identity. Didn't the Taiwanese people use their ballots to show their determination to safeguard the nation in last year's presidential election? Today, the nation faces a polarized choice between the pan-blues and the pan-greens, a situation similar to that after World War II, when there was a choice between the US or the Soviet Union.
As then US secretary of state John Dulles commented, "To be neutral is immoral." In the sharp confrontation between pro-China and pro-localization forces, almost everyone has a stance.
If median voters really exist, most of them are indifferent to politics and seldom vote, or are "watermelon voters," who bend with the wind and pick the biggest watermelon in the field, as the Taiwanese saying goes. If the party only tries to curry favor with such voters, it will be unsuccessful, and will drive away its own supporters. The end result will be to further enhance the Ma phenomenon.
Besides, a party can only attract more moderate voters when its diehard supporters all enthusiastically support it. US social theorist Immanuel Wallerstein suggested that what looks normal statistically soon looks normal morally as well. This should serve as a motto for the defeated DPP.
Chin Heng-wei is the editor-in-chief of Contemporary Monthly magazine.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS