In the midterm elections held on Nov. 7, the US Democratic party won a sweeping, greater-than-anticipated victory. The party made gains in state governments and gubernatorial races, most notably in Massachusetts and New York. In the House of Representatives, it won 231 seats versus 197 seats for the Republicans. In the Senate, each party now has 49 seats, but two independents -- senators Joseph Lieberman and Bernie Sanders -- will likely align with the Democrats, thus giving Democrats control of the Senate.
After the 2000 presidential election, depending on which party they voted for, states were depicted as red for Republican or blue for Democratic. That year, only states on the East and West coasts and a few in the upper Midwest were blue; the vast expanse of the rest of the country was red.
After the midterm elections, a new political map has been drawn according to the governors' parties, and the northeastern, midwestern and southern border states are now mostly blue. The Great Plains and Rocky Mountain states are a mixed palette and only the deep south is now solidly red.
Across the US, the Democrats won 57 percent of independent voters' votes, while the Republicans won 39 percent. In the east, the margin was 63 Democratic to 33 percent Republican.
The Democrats also made gains among the critical white working class voters known as Reagan Democrats. These professionals preferred Democrats by 58 percent to 41 percent for Republicans in congressional races.
Latinos backed Democrats by an overwhelming 72 to 27 percent for Republicans in the West. Younger voters voted Democratic by 63 percent to 33 percent for Republicans.
The Democrats won because centrist voters were turned off by the corruption in Washington as exemplified by scandal surrounding lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the revelation of former Republican representative Mark Foley's misconduct shortly before election day.
By far the most important reason, however, was voters' disillusionment with the war in Iraq. After viewing the daily carnage on TV, many voters came to the conclusion that the government lacked the capacity and strategy to extricate its troops with a modicum of dignity and without leaving chaos behind.
US President George W. Bush responded by empowering the Iraq Study Group headed by James Baker, who served as secretary of state under former president George H. W. Bush, to recommend a new strategy for Iraq.
It is possible that Bush the younger will follow the study group's advice and look for ways to extricate the US from its Iraq debacle before that country breaks out into full-scale civil war, but this is by no means certain.
In any event, US foreign policy is still primarily the domain of the executive branch and it would be suicidal for the Democrats to cut off funds for the war, so the Bush administration may continue to prosecute the war at its own pace.
Where the Democrats can make a difference is mainly in domestic affairs. Democrats will now chair all committees in congress and will be able to control the agenda and schedule in both the House and the Senate. They will be able to scrutinize the Bush administration's policies and actions more closely through congressional hearings.
Bush's strategist Karl Rove called the Republican loss a "transient, passing thing."
Whether the Democrats can turn this year's victory into a long-term majority will depend on whether they can work with the Republicans to advance the nation's welfare.
The Democrats have a long agenda. They want the federal minimum wage lifted, something Bush has already agreed to. They want to pass a compromise bill setting out a path to citizenship for some of the 12 million illegal immigrants after it failed under the House Republicans.
The Democrats have also proposed to allow the government to negotiate price reductions with drug companies under the Medicare drug package.
Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy will push for more funding for the No Child Left Behind Act. Democrats also want to end the tax breaks given to oil companies and to firms outsourcing jobs overseas and trim the adverse effect of the alternative minimum tax on middle-class families.
On trade, a Democratic push for robust labor protection in trade agreements could slow down trade liberalization. China could also face more scrutiny, as Congress is likely to push for a more realistic valuation of the yuan and ask for greater protection for intellectual property.
Representative Nancy Pelosi, the next Speaker of the House, wrote in the Los Angeles Times: "Our growing national debt to China is a national security issue ... Our trade relationship has been a disaster ... the trade deficit with China has grown from [US]$4 billion a year to more than [US]$4 billion a week. China continues to manipulate its currency, making its exports cheaper and US imports more expensive than they would be in free-market conditions."
The Democrats will have to work with the Republicans and with skill to achieve their goals. Whether they are successful will affect the outcome of the 2008 presidential election.
Analysts have also noted that while the congressional committees will be headed by older, liberal leaders, many of the incoming younger members of congress are more conservative or centrist in their outlook.
While some congressional Democrats can't wait to investigate Republican corruption or incompetence in conducting the Iraq war, the stable of Democratic presidential hopefuls in the Senate is more interested in achieving tangible results through bipartisan efforts.
Pelosi will have her hands full in keeping the disparate wings of her party working together.
The Republicans, too, are divided, especially on the issue of Iraq. Senator John McCain, for example, echoes Bush's call for victory. But that victory no longer includes permanent military bases on Iraqi soil or control of Iraq's underground oil reserves. Instead, it presumably means a democratic government that can prevent Iraq from falling apart or becoming a training ground for al-Qaeda.
Others such as senators Chuck Hagel and John Warner are asking for an exit strategy for Iraq. Nevertheless,the fact is that the US no longer has any good options. Getting stuck in Iraq means not only waste of treasure and human lives, both US and Iraqi, but also inability to address mounting problems elsewhere, such as the North Korean and Iranian nuclear issues, the emerging Sino-Russian axis, the war against terror, the twin budget and trade deficits, and challenges from China across the globe.
How the war in Iraq is ultimately resolved will have a profound impact on US credibility and its geostrategic position in the world. Both parties need to work together in search of the best solution while a safe and orderly exit is still feasible.
The Democratic gains in the midterm election are generally good news for Taiwan. Pelosi, Representative Tom Lantos, who will chair the House International Relations Committee and Senator Sherrod Brown all support Taiwan to varying extents.
The re-election of several strong supporters of Taiwan -- including representatives Rob Andrews, Steve Chabot, Dana Rohrbacher, Tom Tancredo and Senator Jon Kyl -- is also a favorable development.
However, on the negative side, the retirement of representative Henry Hyde, who believed that a democratic Taiwan offered a good example for China to follow, is a loss. So is the ascension of Senator Joe Biden -- who is cold towards Taiwan -- to the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The most important factor, however, is Pelosi's clear-eyed view of China. Her criticism of China includes human rights abuses, unfair trade practices and allegations that China seeks technology to undermine US national security.
On April 20, she said: "Bush administration officials say they hope that China will become a `responsible stakeholder.' We should avoid wishful thinking."
While strong congressional support is good for Taiwan, it should be realized that foreign policy is essentially decided by the executive branch. Support for Taiwan has also been bi-partisan, so gains by one party or another do not necessarily affect the overall level of support for Taiwan.
The improvement of US-Taiwan relations hinges on whether Taiwan is able to carry out three tasks: improve its national defense, preserve economic independence and develop a loyal opposition.
Beyond advancing the arms purchase bill in the Legislative Yuan, the nation also needs to improve the readiness of its armed forces, prepare citizens psychologically for a potential attack by China and protect military assets through hardening, redundancy and diversion.
Through such concrete actions, the nation must demonstrate its determination to defend its democracy and sovereignty.
Avoiding excessive dependence on the Chinese economy is also vital to Taiwan's survival. The continuing hemorrhage of Taiwan's capital, technology and manpower to China must be contained. If it is not, the two economies will become so tightly integrated that Taiwan will lose its ability to function as an independent state.
Lastly, the members of the pan-blue opposition must be persuaded that their freedom and prosperity depends on cooperating with the pan-green Democratic Progressive Party and the Taiwan Solidarity Union.
In Beijing's eyes, both camps are contaminated with the ideas and habits of liberal democracy, which must be purged through re-education. That could mean execution for prominent political leaders, incarceration for many mid-level politicians and community leaders and perhaps exile to China's remote provinces for many professionals.
The fact is that each person in Taiwan shares the same destiny. If the nation is united, it may survive and prosper. If it is divided, Taiwan will cease to exist.
The US debacle in Iraq offers a lesson for Taiwan: Once a nation embarks on a misguided policy, it can find itself trapped. While Iraq has turned into a major political and strategic disaster for the US, it will not scuttle the US' pre-eminence because of the depth of the country's military and economic power.
Taiwan, however, does not have this depth. If the nation fails to enhance its economic security and military security, the results could prove fatal.
Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS