If the pan-blue camp doesn't win the next election, its stupidity is to blame.
The pan blues' stupidity lies in its limited knowledge of today's situation, its own identity and its enemy. Among the many causes that led to the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) swift defeat by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the late 1940s, "ignorance" was one of the key factors, according to its own party elder Chen Li-fu (
Ignorance and stupidity are two different words but they mean the same. The past ignorance of the KMT and the stupidity of today's pan-blue camp make one begin to believe that "political genes" do exist and can be passed down.
The KMT has been an opposition party for almost four years. Despite its fall from power, it still acts as if it were in power, always putting up quite a front. It is ridiculous for the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to behave like an opposition party. Yet it is absolutely pathetic for the blue camp to act as if it was still in power.
Election campaigns are not about wining and dining and observing etiquette. The pan-blue camp, however, has churned out excessive formalities for the presidential election. The decision-making platform built between the KMT and the People First Party (PFP) may appear representative but in reality it is not functional at all.
Within the camp, decisions come from two, if not more, sources at the same time, distracting enough to disrupt the camp's original plan and bungle its chance of winning. Not to mention the fact that a crowd of irrelevant figures are attempting to use this mechanism to voice their opinions. So the pan-blue camp has exhausted its resources even before the real battle starts. On the contrary, the DPP has a unified decision-making body.
Interestingly, as the political figures of the KMT-PFP alliance retain their bureaucratic ways, its academics continue to be a school of eggheads. As everyone knows, campaign language has to be simple so that people can easily pronounce and remember them. The pan-blues' cross-strait policies started with their "one China roof," then "parallel development" and later "pro-peace, not pro-PRC."
These expressions may be comprehensible to academics and bureaucrats, yet for those who can immediately understand expressions like "one country on each side," these slogans sound confusing, thus failing to resonate. So the pan-blues' stupidity is even reflected in its choice of language.
Most stupid of all, the pan-blue camp has not yet formulated tactics, not to mention strategies, in the election campaign.
The pan-blue presidential candidates have not mirrored Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's successful campaign tactic of ignoring what his rivals say about him simply because KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
In the last couple of months, the pan-green camp has mercilessly broadsided the pan-blue camp, which in turn could barely cope or fight back, thus resulting in a slump in the polls. Obviously, the pan-blues are so stupid as to choose the wrong tactics.
The pan-blue camp not only knows little about defense, it also knows little about offense. While the pan-greens launch wave after wave of attacks, the pan-blues' attempts to hit back could barely be pettier.
For example, during President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) visit to the US, the pan-blues criticized him for allegedly buying diplomacy with arms purchases and failing to get a 21-gun salute when is is clear to all that the protocol offered to Chen was in the hands of the host country.
These accusations only show that the pan-blue camp is narrow-minded and green-eyed. The pan-blue camp hurts itself with these comments, which unravel its own shortcomings as well as its extraordinary stupidity.
Conducting an election campaign is like fighting a war. The one who obtains a vantage point in strategies stands a better chance of winning. The pan-blue camp should be the one that makes advances and tries to rattle the ruling party. But now the two sides have changed places and the ammunition is in the DPP's hands. Unless the pan-blue camp changes its strategies, it will repeat its history of losing battles because of its own ignorance.
Wang Chien-chuang is the president of The Journalist magazine.
Translated by Jennie Shih
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
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
Taiwan People’s Party Legislator-at-large Liu Shu-pin (劉書彬) asked Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) a question on Tuesday last week about President William Lai’s (賴清德) decision in March to officially define the People’s Republic of China (PRC), as governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), as a foreign hostile force. Liu objected to Lai’s decision on two grounds. First, procedurally, suggesting that Lai did not have the right to unilaterally make that decision, and that Cho should have consulted with the Executive Yuan before he endorsed it. Second, Liu objected over national security concerns, saying that the CCP and Chinese President Xi
RSS