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.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS