The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is holding its chairmanship poll today. Chen Shih-meng (陳師孟), former secretary-general of the Presidential Office, has voiced concerns that a chairperson favoring the “middle road” will be elected because of the DPP’s recent electoral defeats.
Chen’s worries are not groundless. Since the DPP’s establishment in 1986, the middle road has had a strong voice in the party. When President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) bluntly proposed his “four noes and one without” policy in 2000, the middle road became mainstream. This is bad for both the party and the development of Taiwan independence.
Political scientists often cite the Dow Theory, which says that in a political confrontation, the left and right wings make up a minority while supporters of the middle road make up the majority. On this basis, many academics claim they have found the best strategy for the blue and green camps: a platform leaning neither toward unification nor independence.
This is questionable, because the issue of sovereignty cannot be compared with that of distribution and production. Generally, support for the left and right wing stance on production and distribution fluctuates in party competition in capitalist societies. The left or the right stance will be more popular at different times, but neither is ever eliminated by the other. The sovereignty issue, on the other hand, is a zero-sum game, so in the long run, the trend will be either toward unification or independence, and there would be no turning back. The neutral stance of “non-unification, non-independence” is transitional.
This can be seen from Taiwan’s development over the past 15 years. Support for Taiwan’s independence temporarily dropped when Chen adopted the middle road, but in the long run, it has increased. If the unification, independence and the centrist stances each represent one-third of the population, the current 60 percent support for independence — nearly two-thirds — has eliminated the centrist stance.
Thus, the DPP was not defeated because it has abandoned the middle road, but rather because of public disappointment with its administrative performance over the past eight years. Even president-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) understands that the middle road is not enough, and he continues to promote Taiwan awareness.
Still, not taking the middle road does not mean the DPP must take a radical path.
The middle road is bad for the development of Taiwanese independence, but so is the radical path, which often ignores objective conditions and the majority opinion. It would be disadvantageous to the independence movement if such a path were to trigger international or domestic anger.
Although the DPP should not take the middle road, it should note that voters are neutral. If the radicals relentlessly attack centrist voters for being opportunistic, they will push voters into the hands of the pan-blue camp, and this is no help in strengthening the independence camp. Therefore, the party should take a “steady” path that is neither centrist nor radical. This path should be based on a firm and clear stance, goodwill and flexible and stable policies that will attract centrist supporters. This would be the best way to benefit Taiwan’s independence.
The DPP has three possibilities to choose from: a steady line that attracts voters without abandoning its position; a middle line that sacrifices its stance while leaning toward the blue camp; or a radical line that sticks to its stance but drives centrist voters away.
As I see it, neither of the candidates for DPP chairperson follows the middle path. So the question is: Could they be considered steady or radical?
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Eddy Chang
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS