George Stephanopoulos, who became Bill Clinton's advisor at the age of 30-something, interestingly titled a chapter in his memoir (All Too Human: A Political Education), "That weekend, I became Haldeman????"
Who was Haldeman? H. R. Haldeman was once White House chief of staff under Richard Nixon. He was powerful for a while, but was later jailed for his involvement in the Watergate scandal.
What does Stephanopoulos mean when he said he became Haldeman?
Though a scandal, Watergate left many contributions to US politics, including new vocabulary words. For example, "deep throat" means an anonymous informer; "smoking gun" means incriminating evidence.
"Haldeman" was transformed from a personal name to a generic term; it can be used to cover any presidential confidante who lies and covers up criminal acts committed by a president.
Stephanopoulos called himself Haldeman because he had, without having knowledge of inside information about the Paula Jones scandal, had gone all out to protect Bill Clinton from the scandal. However, he found out later that he had been lying on behalf of the president, just like Haldeman had done.
But it is not so easy to be a "Haldeman." One must be the president's confidante -- in fact, a confidante among confidantes -- basically a manifestation of the president's darker side. Haldeman once said something to the effect of, "Every president has to have a son of a bitch by his side. I was that son of a bitch of Nixon." Obviously, not all the president's men are qualified to be "Haldeman."
A "Haldeman's" power does not come from an official position. He or she can be a White House chief of staff or an advisor like Stephanopoulos, a big shot or a small fry. He or she can even be an inconspicuous secretary by the president's side. So long as the person remains within "power distance" to the president, he or she can have the president's ears, control the sources of information going to the president, or be the president's mouthpiece. If a lack of restraint on the president's part is added to these qualifications, "Haldeman's" power can expand infinitely.
Also, "Haldeman" by definition has to be an "inner" official. Working in the inner palace, he has only one job: to follow the president's orders. "Outer" officials also see him as a representative or envoy of the president.
However, the power of an inner official is prone to self-expansion. After serving as a double for a while, an inner official inevitably begins to feel as if he or she is the very god he or she represents. History is full of stories about the political turmoil caused by inner officials interfering in politics beyond their station. This is as true in the US as it is in Taiwan.
Taiwan's Su Chih-cheng
There is no harm in abolishing the post because it is not stipulated in regulations governing the organization of the presidential office. But whether or not Ma will become another Su has nothing to do with his official position. Any inner official can be a Su, although simply assuming the post does not necessarily make him into one, as long as he is committed to not becoming one.
In the process of handling the Paula Jones scandal, Stephanopoulos even hunted down Haldeman's Watergate diaries and read them because he had the alarming feeling that he had become a Haldeman. The more he read, the more terrified he became. Stephanopoulous also recommended the book to the then White House chief of staff in the hopes that he would learn a lesson about crisis management from the Watergate history. At the same time, Stephanopoulos decided never to be a Haldeman again. Hence, he left the White House before the Monica scandal exploded. He would rather be George Stephanopoulos than Clinton's SOB or Haldeman.
Whether or not Ma will become a Su Chih-cheng does not depend on his title, but on his alertness and willingness to learn from history.
Wang Chien-chuang is president of The Journalist magazine.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers