Campaigns are about sending the right messages to the voters. Campaigns are about who can deliver their message well. A campaign cannot be successful if it is based solely on a negative message. All candidates should keep these rules in mind.
Regretfully, what we have witnessed in the last couple of weeks of the Democratic Progressive Party's primary battle is finger-pointing, exchanges of rhetoric and a lack of vision.
Since President Chen Shui-bian's (
Recent episodes include Lu's accusations about Su's attempts to force Chen out of office last year.
Lu implied in a TV interview that Su attempted to use his resignation as a threat to force Chen to step down when Chen was the target of a street campaign demanding his resignation. Yu later echoed Lu's statement. Hsieh also complained about Su's monopolizing of executive resources for his personal campaign.
Though he has confirmed Su's offer to resign on four separate occasions, Chen has protested Su's innocence.
As Su is by far and away the most popular of the "big four," it's only natural for the other three to target him as their common enemy before the DPP's primary process begins.
The media love the smell of blood and each competitor will take advantage of the other's mistakes to try and improve their chances. Negative campaigns have their place, but they do not form the essential structure of a winning campaign. They are sometimes used as tactical tools to gain an advantage, but most of the time negatives will only work once you've laid out an alternative vision for your candidacy through positive ads and reform-minded determination.
Therefore, we urge Chen, Hsieh and Su and all the DPP's candidates to focus primarily on offering positive and concrete public policy proposals and visions that will tackle Taiwan's pressing economic, social, environmental and cultural problems. Those are the messages that the voters want to hear.
Campaigns start with competing messages. The key to winning any race is to come up with an affirmative message that betters your opponents' message. It is the inability to understand this simple, straightforward point that causes more losses in politics than any other single factor.
In articulating the affirmative message of a campaign, comparisons between each candidates' positions may be needed. If the comparisons are just a thin disguise for negatives, voters will catch on quickly. If the comparisons of the positions are accurate and reflect the real opinions of the candidates, they may work.
Each contender has his or her own unique personality. The key is to translate this into leadership and turn the country back on the right track.
All four candidates should also seize the opportunity given by the public debates to convince the voters that the pursuit of social justice, independent national sovereignty, the enhancement of national security and clean politics constitute the keys to Taiwan's sustainable development.
Bold initiatives that leave the voters behind are not acts of leadership but of self-indulgent arrogance. The art of leadership is to maintain sufficient momentum to control events and steer public policy without losing support.
An idealist leader will not hesitate to do something that is unpopular. But a smart idealist will carefully measure public opinion before he does so.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS