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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS