The US periodical Newsweek has likened President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to former US president Bill Clinton -- a man who tried to please everybody. The analogy is a criticism, not a compliment. Chen should take it as a warning and consider it carefully.
A few months after Clinton entered the White House, former president Richard Nixon observed that he had numerous shortcomings as a leader. The most serious of them was that Clinton desperately wanted to please everyone, but ultimately usually ended up pleasing no one, or at most only pleasing a very small number of people. Clinton's leadership style throughout his eight-year presidency proved Nixon right. Two aspects of Clinton the politician demonstrated his desire to please everyone: his political style and his political line.
Clinton was a president with extraordinary charisma. He was young, full of vitality, eloquent, and cordial -- quite uncommon qualities among recent US presidents. Only Clinton's idol, former US president John Kennedy, really stood up to comparison.
Clinton was not overly partisan. Although he was a Democrat, he professed to be a "New Democrat." He took the "third way" as his governing line. On the surface, he was neither left nor right, but in fact he wavered, going back and forth between the two. He wanted to have everything his way and get help from both sides. That is why he tried to please everyone.
The reason why Chen wants to please everyone is almost exactly the same and that desire is a very serious weakness in a leader. While Clinton was standing for his second term, the Economist magazine published an editorial titled, "Which Clinton?" They quoted a joke involving Republican presidential candidate, Bob Dole, and his running mate, Jack Kemp. The joke went that although the policy differences between Dole and Kemp were large, they paled in comparison with those between Clinton and Clinton.
Clinton paid lip-service to the notion of being a New Democrat, but in his heart, he was still an old-fashioned Democrat. In practice, however, he resembled a moderate Republican. At times, he acted like a bright and energetic activist, but at times he looked like a disorganized leader. He seemed like a principled idealist, but he was also a dyed-in-the-wool pragmatist.
Apparently, Clinton wanted to please everyone not only in the domestic political arena but also in his foreign policy. But the result was that, at home, people didn't know which Clinton to support, and, abroad, people didn't know which Clinton to believe. His policies, both foreign and domestic, lacked consistency, and, even worse, the political or policy information that he released in his capacity as president was contradictory.
Chen's speeches have often varied in accordance with the setting and the audience because he has Clintonesque leadership characteristics and because he is typical of "situational politicians." The circumstances determine everything. He speaks of independence to independence advocates and speaks of unification to the unificationists. He talks of peace at the front line, and talks of war at the rear. He discusses reconciliation when at a disadvantage and advocates direct opposition when in an advantageous position. As a result, many people are perplexed about which Chen they are hearing.
Taiwan currently faces a very particular set of circumstances both at home and abroad. Perhaps it is inevitable for politicians to want to please everyone or occasionally release ambiguous information. But while information may be ambiguous, it absolutely must not be confusing and contradictory. Sooner or later, such information will incur a heavy price. Chen should learn this lesson from Clinton.
Wang Chien-chuang is president of The Journalist magazine.
Translated by Ethan Harkness
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