Eight days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the US, the staunchly pro-Republican Wall Street Journal published an editorial calling on US President George W. Bush to take advantage of his phenomenal post-attacks approval rating to redraft his national agenda.
Underlying the call was the fact that since Sept. 11, the American people, including members of Congress, have united under the Stars and Stripes. Bush's level of popular support has also reached a historic high of over 90 percent.
If he doesn't seize this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and take advantage of the "windfall" of Sept. 11 to expand his political capital, the paper argued, he will fall into the same trap that ensnared his father.
The elder Bush's popularity was also very high during the Gulf War, but, in exchange for the approval of the Democrat-controlled Congress for waging war, he had to give his support to a Democratic resolution to raise taxes.
His compromise with Congress was criticized by the Republican Party as "winning the war but losing on the home front."
The Wall Street Journal hopes Bush will bear in mind the lesson of his father's mistake and not compromise with Congress during the war.
The national defense budget that couldn't be secured earlier should be debated anew, it argued. The drilling for oil in Alaska that the administration previously feared would give rise to dispute should now be carried out with a free hand. The tax cut plan that has been put off for many months should be completed as soon as possible.
Bush shouldn't even have misgivings about nominating conservatives for confirmation as federal judges. He must seize the moment when his popularity is at its zenith, the paper said, to implement his entire program in one push.
Why would the Wall Street Journal dare to make such suggestions and gamble that Bush would succeed in expanding his authority? The answer is very simple -- because the nation is at war. Congress doesn't dare challenge the president's authority. Even if some members were to be so bold as to do so, there would be a backlash of public opinion against them.
Events have proven, however, that the Wall Street Journal's judgement was overly optimistic.
Although both houses of Congress unconditionally support Bush's war policy, the Congress does have some objections to the economic stimulus package proposed by the White House.
There is also a dispute between the two parties about whether the federal government should exercise authority over aviation safety, and a difference of opinion about whether the tax-cut plan is temporary or long-term.
The wartime congress hasn't become a silent congress. It hasn't surrendered its arms to the White House.
Put simply, the terror of war has indeed united the country, but the battles between the White House and the Congress -- and those between the Republican and Democratic parties -- haven't ceased in the political atmosphere of national unity. The necessary struggles go on as usual; it's just that the language of struggle has become a bit more rational and the tactics employed a bit more moderate.
The well-known columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. described the new situation as not the end of "partisanship" but rather the beginning of a "new partisanship."
One basic rule of democratic politics is that if the party out of office can't play opposition games, then it isn't a real opposition party, and if the party in office can't play alliance-forming games, it isn't a real ruling party.
Because former US president Dwight Eisenhower was good at forming alliances, even though the House of Representatives was under the control of the Democrats during his presidency, the congress very rarely boycotted the White House.
Since Tip O'Neill believed "I must be full of partisanship," when he was House speaker, the House of Representatives frequently played the opposition game of clashing with Ronald Reagan.
Every leader of a democratic country resents the legislature of his country and wants his own political party to be the majority party in the legislature. None would want to preside over a "split government" (in which the executive and legislative branches are under the control of two different parties). Each wants to serve as leader of a "complete government."
But history has shown that a president who can control the legislature doesn't necessarily establish a record of abundant achievement. By the same token, a president who loses control over the legislature won't necessarily wind up accomplishing nothing.
Clearly the legislature is only a relative factor, not an absolute one, in whether or not a president or a ruling party can get things done.
Taiwan's opposition parties don't know how to play opposition games, and the ruling party doesn't know how to play the alliance game.
Those with power and those without it play best at passing the buck. That's the main reason why the current political situation is so unstable.
Some now hold up the post-Sept. 11 US as an example to appeal to voters in the name of national unity. This amounts to a failure to understand the real conditions of US politics and a distortion of the basic nature of democracy. It is a hundred times more serious than just passing the buck.
Wang Chien-chuang is president of The Journalist magazine.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS