In the campaigns running up to tomorrow’s special municipality elections, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has tried to transform its electioneering tactics, veering away from the traditional ideological campaigns that were prevalent under former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). The best example of this new tactic is the DPP’s use of the Internet to direct its campaign rhetoric at the Web-savvy younger generation, which typically refrains from voting.
Taipei mayoral candidate Su Tseng-chang’s (蘇貞昌) campaign headquarters in downtown Taipei is a prime example of the DPP’s new direction. His technology-heavy office is more reminiscent of the Taipei International Flora Exposition’s Pavilion of the Future than a center of politics. DPP candidates elsewhere have also turned to rock concerts and popular culture to woo younger voters. However, despite this shift, the party hasn’t quite gone far enough.
In local elections, the key factor for voters, especially swing voters who are undecided until election day, is what a candidate says he or she will do to improve their daily lives. Campaign platforms in municipal elections should focus on such mundane topics as cleaning street gutters, improving traffic lights, building more bicycle paths, fixing broken street signs or improving and building parks. Those are the issues that touch the lives of swing voters, not ideological divides between the pan-green and pan-blue camps, scandals involving municipal projects, presidential politics, international affairs and whether or not an opponent was born locally.
The DPP’s candidates have spent too much time and effort attacking their Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) opponents and too little on how they would improve the municipalities they wish to govern. Su focused many a comment on Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin’s (郝龍斌) possible involvement in the Xinsheng Overpass scandal. DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) attacked her KMT Sinbei mayoral opponent Eric Chu (朱立倫) for allowing pollution to flow into Taoyuan County rivers when he was county commissioner. In Taichung, DPP mayoral candidate Su Jia-chyuan (蘇嘉全) criticized Taichung Mayor Jason Hu’s (胡志強) nine years in office, saying he hadn’t improved the crime situation, as demonstrated by a recent scandal involving police and gangsters.
In all of these examples, there was too little focus on what the candidates plan to do if they win and too much focus on the negative attributes of their opponents.
Another issue DPP candidates should have de--emphasized is their belief that this election would serve as a referendum on President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) policies. The majority of swing voters in these elections are thinking about issues that are closer to home, not about whether Ma is selling out their future. They will be voting for somebody who will build a better place for them to live and work, not somebody who will concentrate on repealing the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement.
Most importantly, they are voting for officials to lead their own governments, not for somebody who makes their stance against or for China clear. This is not a referendum on the president, it is a referendum on how well people think the DPP or the KMT can govern.
Of course, it’s now too late for the DPP to change its tactics. All it can do is hope its final mix of events directed at younger voters, coupled with traditional electioneering activities, will sway residents in those municipalities where the party might have a chance of turning the tide against the KMT.
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