For a multitude of reasons, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has, by nominating Deputy Legislative Speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), put forward its weakest-ever presidential candidate.
According to a KMT- commissioned poll released on Wednesday last week, Hung has an 18 percent support rating, trailing People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) on 19 percent and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) 37 percent. For investors in the fortunes of the pan-blue camp: With only five months to go until the election, what action could be taken to counter such an unfavorable turn of events?
The political views of voters match a normal distribution curve, so during any single election, candidates must do all in their power to command the support of median voters.
Adopting the middle ground between left and right — between the opposing values of progressive and conservative schools of thought — is certainly not based upon the philosophical principal of the Confucian “golden mean.” On the contrary, it is based upon statistical theory. It is precisely because centrist voters represent majority public opinion that candidates — irrespective of their individual beliefs — often pretend to be all things to all people: This is the most commonly used method to perform well in an election.
The reality of politics is far too complex to be explained by simple academic theory: There are other factors at play that must also be taken into consideration. Not every candidate necessarily has winning as their goal. Some candidates use their candidacy as a political tool. Others join for the ride, interested only in competing rather than actually winning. Furthermore, normal behavior dictates that many people often select political commentary and analysis that fits with their preconceived ideas and beliefs, since this provides a feeling of comfort and they can avoid confronting uncomfortable truths.
Lastly, one should not view median voters through the prism of random statistical averages that places them precisely between the twin poles of left and right. It would be a mistake to believe that by occupying the middle ground, adopting an impartial stance and making reasonable accommodations, candidates will be able to gain the approval of more voters. In reality, political attitudes change as time goes by. A normal distribution curve can quickly become skewed.
Consider the issue of national recognition. According to a study conducted by the Election Study Center at National Chengchi University in 1992, 26 percent of respondents identified themselves as Chinese, 18 percent as Taiwanese and the remainder as possessing a dual identity. However, this year the numbers have changed to 3 percent of the population identifying themselves as Chinese and 59 percent as Taiwanese. Put another way, a little over 20 years ago, adopting a two-faced attitude to curry favor with the electorate was a winning strategy, but in today’s era of increased local consciousness, such a strategy would likely provoke a backlash from the electorate.
US attitudes toward homosexuality have undergone a similar transformation. During the 2004 presidential election, while searching for a policy to “fire up the base” and win a second term in office, then-US president George W. Bush planned statewide referendums to amend the definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The aim was to motivate the Christian right to vote for him. This 11-year-old electoral trick has now been rendered totally ineffective, since states across the US were already passing laws that said homosexuals can marry before the US Supreme Court earlier this year said gay couples in the US have full marriage rights.
Following defeat to the Democratic Progressive Party in the 2000 presidential election — and faced with a rapidly growing local consciousness — the KMT attempted to adjust its image. At the following presidential election in 2004, Soong and former vice president Lien Chan (連戰), in displays of intense passion, knelt down and kissed the ground.
Four years later, in the 2008 election, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) declared: “Even if I were struck down and burned to ashes, I would still be Taiwanese.”
In comparison, following her nomination, Hung has loudly opposed independence as a sop to deep-blue voters, while even declaring that the Ministry of Education’s changes to the high-school curriculum do not go far enough. Hung has joined forces with Ma to criticize former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝). Driven by an nationalist vision of “greater China,” Hung and Ma refuse to admit that Taiwan was previously assimilated into the Japanese empire or the historical fact that Taiwanese previously identified themselves as Japanese subjects.
Hung’s policy of rapid unification might fire up the deep-blue KMT core, but it will fail to attract voters who sit in the middle of the unification-independence divide.
Why then would the KMT employ an electoral policy that flies in the face of common sense? Perhaps a sinister plot has been hatched. This would explain why Hung appears not to care about winning the election. Or perhaps this is her unique style as she struggles to balance reason with emotion. Developments of the election campaign need to be closely monitored and some time will reveal the answer.
Ivan Ho is a professor in the Department of Sociology at National Taiwan University.
Translated by Edward Jones
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS