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
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
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
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
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