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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS