社會觀察 . 獨立評論 . 多元觀點 . 公共書寫 . 世代翻轉

  • Home
  • English
  • 評論
  • 民意
  • 時事
  • 生活
  • 國際
  • 歷史
  • 世代
  • 轉載
  • 投稿須知

Party Unity Is Paramount – A Lesson from the US

  • English Article
  • 時事
  • 民意

What’s worse: Nominating a candidate you don’t like (but many others do), who wins the election and continues the legacy of the party, or nominating one that you really like (but many others don’t), who loses?

Party unity is fundamentally important for anyone hoping to win an election. Just look at what happened to the Democrats during the 2016 presidential primary in the US: Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders (as well as their supporters) fought tooth and nail until the bitter end (when Clinton received the nomination), with the intra-party conflict dividing people ‘on the same team’ and perhaps contributing directly to the unthinkable, razor-thin loss in the general election to Donald Trump. Currently, there’s a similar drama unfolding within the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) primary ahead of the 2020 presidential election in Taiwan, with incumbent president Tsai Ing-wen and challenger William Lai both bitterly vying for the nomination. The question we need to ask is: Is the situation in Taiwan equivalent to what happened in the US? And if so, what can be done about it?

DPP postponed the internal election for 2020 presidential election. Image Source: Yahoo Kimo
DPP postponed the internal election for 2020 presidential election. Image Source: Yahoo Kimo

In America, Clinton – like Tsai – was the assumed front runner for her party’s nomination, even before the primary began. This was mainly due to her exceptional name recognition, the fact that she represented the mainstream of the Democratic establishment, and the deep pockets she could leverage in support of her candidacy. The problem, however, was that Sanders appeared from out of nowhere and became an incredibly popular grass-roots candidate (like Trump), garnering massive crowds at rallies, energizing his base of left-wing populists, and drawing in other Democratic voters dissatisfied with Hillary’s neoliberal ideas and the Clinton political machine. For some members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC; the governing body of the Democratic Party), the situation became more of a headache as the surprisingly close primary dragged on. Although it was obvious, perhaps, to many Committee members that it was Hillary’s ‘time’ to run, Sanders wasn’t making things easy by being so damned popular among voters.

Perhaps it helped that her supporters held top positions at the DNC (in fact, former chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned after leaked emails showed a bias against Sanders) and she had a favorable fundraising arrangement with the Committee, but in the end Clinton secured the nomination, prompting many of Sanders’ followers to cry foul at what they saw as the unfair treatment he received.

While many DNC officials were no doubt overjoyed that their preferred candidate – and not some old semi-independent socialist from outside their ranks – got the nod, that was before the general election, when – [cough] [cough] [cough] – Clinton lost to none other than the reality TV-star, narcissistic demigod Trump. Given that fact, I think it’s fair to wonder whether all those officials still believe they pushed for the right nominee, because, no matter how good it may feel for your guy (or girl) to triumph in the primary, it’s essentially worth zilch, nothing, nada, if he or she fails to beat the other dude in the main event. And the sad thing about the Clinton-Sanders saga – at least in the minds of many Democratic voters – is that the people in charge of the Democratic party seemed to have lost sight of that fact in the rush to have their candidate succeed.

Whether Sanders would have won the nomination outright if he’d had the same purported fundraising advantages and friends in high places that Clinton did is unlikely, but the truth is that he was polling better than her against Trump during much of the primary, which is notable given the general election results. Also, as it’s hard for voters to trust the democratic process if their party isn’t being, um, so democratic, it should come as no surprise that there was a noticeable lack of enthusiasm for Clinton leading up to the election. And this brings us to the remarkably similar political drama currently occurring in Taiwan.

According to some polls, Lai – the DPP challenger – would do better than Tsai against potential Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidates in 2020. Granted, the situation isn’t exactly the same as the one in the US, as Tsai is actually the president of the country, and therefore – it could be argued – should automatically get the nomination. The flaw in this line of reasoning, however, is that the quicksand of the political landscape always changes, and if the party – which is, by definition, greater than any single individual – fails to adapt, all may be lost. For example, the DPP got crushed in the 2018 municipal elections, which obviously doesn’t bode well for current party leadership in 2020. But be that as it may, the real issue here isn’t about the past, but the future, as – in the final analysis – it doesn’t really matter who the nominee is, as long as he or she is strongest one.

The biggest danger for the DPP right now is that the longer the primary process drags on (so far it’s been delayed by about two months), the more voters will suspect something fishy (i.e., non-democratic) is going on, leading to disillusionment among supporters of the ‘wronged’ candidate (think Sanders in 2016) and further damage to party unity. So if the DPP’s goal is to field the best candidate in 2020, it would be wise to carry out its opinion polling as soon as possible (it’s currently scheduled for June 10-14), the rules of which should be transparent and just for both participants, with the one who loses stepping aside, no matter how upsetting that may be.

After all, what’s worse: Nominating a candidate you don’t like (but many others do), who wins the election and continues the legacy of the party, or nominating one that you really like (but many others don’t), who loses? If you’re not sure what the answer to the this question is, just ask any Democratic voter who woke up on November 9th, 2016 to the news that Trump had somehow won the presidency, and has been dealing with the train-wreck of his administration every day for the past two-and-a-half years. They’ll probably tell you that – like the Chinese adage says – “When disaster befalls one, no one can escape unscathed.” (覆巢無完卵)

Author / Peter K. Thompson

Share this:

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • More
  • Tumblr
  • Pocket
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn

Related

DPP Trump Tsai Ing-wen 政治 民進黨
2019-06-01 Peter K. Thompson

Post navigation

我們都一樣 — 酒店公關啟示錄 (一) → ← 誠品成為箝制言論自由的幫兇

Related Posts

會勒人脖子的黨主席

你我小公民會吃驚會有勒人脖子的黨主席?當然不奇怪!有暴力、暴動傾向的團體和他們的頭頭,不時不會來這麽一下,來團結羣眾,糾合戰鬪力,才會令人奇怪呢 ! 這是都市游擊隊,街頭巷戰訓練的一部份。要不這樣,怎麼有朝一日,義無反顧,幹它一回,「陣前起義」呢! 媒體倒是有種奇怪的說法,或者說是「陰謀論」:白色「小草黨」,在他們頭頭的領導下,義無反顧,除勒人脖子外,海浪淊淊,在北市警局員警的大好頭顱上,玩起「衝浪」游戲! 據媒體陰謀論的說法,其實「小草黨」針對的可不是年老色衰,不再討人喜歡的所謂「綠營」,尤其是那位「十講大人」:他們已經夠衰了,哪需要落井下石? 「小草黨」更不是要救他們那位「阿亞托拉」的神祇,這只是完美的藉口:神那需要凡人來救 !全國同胞都目睹那位神祇,越「關」越神采奕奕,看來越來越神聖,令小草大君們不得不俯身膜拜 ! 小草黨在他們那位會吆喝、咆哮,滿肚子壞主意的頭頭領導下,其實真正想陰謀攻擊的對象是國民黨!老謀深算的國民黨人心知肚明,台北市蔣市長也看的出,這也為甚麼市長對他台北市警員部屬所受的霸凌,不吭一氣,就是怕中了白黨( 小藍黨)的計! 蔣市長若為其部屬討公道,依法行政,白黨(小藍黨)的那位主席會對藍營羣眾「大放送」:到底誰才是為「藍色理想」奮鬪,全面反綠,誰才是藍營的真正領袖 ?你們若不相信,可以試問趙大董事長,誰才有能力「戰鬪」?是不是「小藍」才是真正的「大藍」,大小易位,國民黨可以忝為「小三」了 ! 所以國民黨再不警醒,會勒人脖子的痞子,形勢使然,終究可要變成藍營的「共主」。傅大總召你可不能從「摸人家的頭」淪為「被人家摸頭」,而為天下人所笑 !百年大黨淪落成「三姓家奴」手掌中的玩物,後代讀史者也會不禁黯然,唏噓不已 ! 作者: 孤憤

賴總統能夠從內外交困中突圍嗎?

在經歷關稅、大罷免失敗等內外打擊之後,賴總統的形象和信任度受到嚴重衝擊,多個民調都顯示出賴總統的支持度大幅下降,並且警示未來可能繼續下降,不僅如此,賴總統日前要求執政黨立院總召柯建銘為大罷免失敗負起政治責任,為柯建銘所拒絕,不少觀察家認為賴總統剩餘任期非常有可能深陷「令不出總統府」的跛腳鴨困境。   毋庸諱言,賴總統已經陷入一場內外交困的政治危機,在國際上,美國川普政府捉摸不定的對中政策及嚴峻的關稅政策,影響了台灣民眾對當前政府支持美國政策的觀感,在國內,經歷大罷免攻防之後的朝野依然尖銳對立,而執政黨內也開始出現對賴總統的信任危機。這些因素的加總,構成今日賴總統所面臨的政治危機。   這場政治危機不僅會持續到2026年地方大選,更可能成為影響2028年總統大選的變數,正是因為看到這個危機,十七位執政黨地方議員日前在社群網站共同發文,向賴總統提出五點行動倡議,要求興利除弊。   有鑒於國內外對於未來台灣政治前景的焦慮和擔憂,賴總統不能再繼續迴避這股焦慮感,筆者認為,賴總統應該考慮下列作法:   一、公開辭去執政黨主席,承諾未來只作全民總統,剩下任期內將專心致力在政務上,改革台灣當前的社經問題及促進國民福祉。   二、主動對在野黨伸出橄欖枝,展現出執政者的高度並爭取在野黨溫和派的支持。   三、在關稅談判上,不能再以擠牙膏的方式應對公眾和在野黨的質疑,要展現出最大的誠意得到公眾和在野黨的理解,並且積極和受到關稅影響的各行各業溝通,撫平業界的不安。   四、改善決策圈的問題,賴總統的決策圈過於狹窄、同質性太高,一直是論者所批評的,在今時今日,這個問題已經是賴總統必須面對的「絆腳石」。   五、加速黨內新陳代謝,栽培並提拔更多更貼近民意、草根出身的青壯派,以及重建小黨和NGO對執政黨的信任感。在處理年邁而資深的政治元老上,手腕要細膩,避免不必要的反彈。   時間不待人,賴總統必須盡快面對、處理,才能從這場政治危機突圍,倘若仍然是因循以對,那麼這場政治危機還會繼續蔓延擴大,不僅是影響賴總統的連任之路,更會給執政黨的政權存續帶來變數。  

如何解決台灣勞動力不足之議題

你有沒有發現,最近身邊很多人開始討論台灣的人口問題?像是生育率變低啦、少子化,甚至有人說未來找不到人來工作,整個社會會「老化」得很嚴重。這些聽起來好像是很遙遠的問題,但其實真的離我們越來越近了。 台灣現在最大的一個挑戰之一就是「勞動人口」越來越少。簡單來說,就是能出來工作、願意工作的壯年人口(大概20歲到64歲之間)越來越不夠用了。原因很簡單,我們的長輩──也就是嬰兒潮那一代的人──他們年紀漸漸大了,開始退休,而年輕人又越生越少,人口沒有補上來,那誰來工作?誰來扛起這個社會的運作?這真的是很現實的問題。 要解決這個問題,最直接的辦法當然是鼓勵大家多生小孩,可是這不是一天兩天就能見效的事情。從一個小孩出生,到他能夠出社會工作,至少要20年。而且要養一個小孩長大,家庭、社會和國家都要投入很多資源,像是教育、醫療、托育、學費補助等等,這都是一筆不小的花費。說實話,現在很多年輕人自己都快養不起自己了,哪還敢生小孩? 因此,除了長期的生育政策之外,一個更快、更有效率的方式可以幫助我們解決眼前的勞動人口問題,那就是開放移民。 移民這個概念,其實在很多國家都不是新鮮事,像是加拿大、澳洲、新加坡、德國等等,他們都有針對特定的行業開放外國人移民,來補足他們國內缺乏的勞動力。不是沒有外國人來工作,但目前大部分都是以移工為主,而且很多政策都不夠開放,讓一些真正想來台灣長期工作、甚至定居的人,處處碰壁。 其實,台灣作為一個海島國家,我們本來就應該更有國際視野、更願意開放與世界接軌。我們不能一直守在自己的一小塊土地上、靠自己的少少人口撐整個國家。尤其在全球化這麼發達的今天,人才是會流動的。如果我們能針對特定的專業領域,比如說科技、醫療、工程、農業、甚至是照護服務,開放外國專業人士來台,不僅能馬上補足我們的人力需求,還有可能讓台灣的產業更有競爭力。 而且從一個更務實的角度來看,外來移民來台工作,他們會在這裡生活、消費、繳稅、租房甚至買房,也會使用本地的交通、餐飲、教育等資源,這對我們的整體經濟是很有幫助的。長遠來看,如果這些移民願意落地生根,成為我們的鄰居、朋友、甚至家人,那不就是幫台灣補上人口、文化和勞動力的空缺嗎? 當然,有人可能會擔心說,這樣會不會搶走本地人的工作?會不會造成文化衝突?這些都是可以理解的疑慮。但重點是政府要怎麼設計一個平衡的制度,像是針對缺工的行業優先開放、設立語言與文化整合課程、保障本地人的就業機會等等。這不是不可能,只是需要決心與政策上的調整。 台灣的勞動人口正在快速萎縮,而我們不能只靠自然出生來等人口成長。開放移民,是一個可以快速補足勞動力缺口、讓台灣繼續往前走的可行方式。當然這需要謹慎規劃,但不做的話,問題只會越來越嚴重。台灣如果要走得更遠、更有未來,就必須學會擁抱改變,學會和世界接軌,勇敢打開門迎接新的可能。

柯文哲夫婦脫序行為對台灣司法的傷害

在台灣的民主政治發展歷程中,司法權的中立與獨立,始終是維護憲政秩序的重要基石。然而,近年來政治人物及其家屬,常透過媒體或社群平台,對司法判決表達不滿與質疑。此種行為雖屬言論自由範疇,但若呈現脫序、情緒化,並缺乏具體證據,則不僅影響社會觀感,亦可能對司法體系造成實質傷害。柯文哲夫婦的多次公開言行,正是此一現象的代表案例,值得深入探討。   司法威信建立於公正與中立之上。柯文哲夫婦在公開場合,屢以戲謔或諷刺方式批評司法判決,甚至質疑檢調辦案動機。此類言論雖有助於凝聚支持群眾,卻會使大眾誤以為司法完全受政治操控,進而動搖制度之正當性。當司法威信遭到削弱,民眾對判決之服從力下降,將直接威脅法治秩序之穩定。   司法除了裁判爭訟,亦具有教育功能,藉公開審理與合理判決,培養公民之守法意識。然而,柯文哲夫婦的脫序言行,可能強化「司法無公信」的社會印象,使民眾誤認法律僅服務於權貴,甚至產生「遵守法律無意義」之錯誤觀念。此不僅侵蝕社會信任,更可能危害年輕世代之法治教育,對社會秩序造成深層次影響。   在民主社會,政治人物應以理性辯論作為表率,透過制度性途徑推動司法改革。然而,柯文哲夫婦多以情緒化言辭來獲取聲量,缺乏具體政策主張。此舉易使公共討論流於民粹與對立,阻礙理性對話之形成。更甚者,若長期傳遞「司法無公信」之訊息,可能導致部分民眾以激進手段挑戰司法秩序,破壞三權分立之憲政結構,對民主運作構成潛在威脅。   司法體系並非無懈可擊,審理遲延、判決差異及透明度不足等問題,確有檢討之必要。然而,批判應建立於實證資料與制度分析,而非情緒性攻擊。政治人物若真欲推動改革,可透過修法、司法透明化機制、法官評鑑制度等途徑來改善。唯有以制度性方式進行批判,方能在監督與尊重之間取得平衡,避免對司法造成不當傷害。   柯文哲夫婦的脫序行為,固然可視為言論自由的一部分,但因其具高度社會影響力,其言行對司法體系之衝擊遠超一般民眾。此類言論若缺乏理性基礎,不僅削弱司法威信,亦侵蝕社會信任,並對台灣民主政治產生負面影響。未來,唯有透過制度性改革與理性批判,方能兼顧司法尊嚴與改革需求,確保台灣法治與民主之持續發展。

Recent Posts

會勒人脖子的黨主席

會勒人脖子的黨主席

你我小公民會吃驚會有勒人脖子的黨主席?當然不奇怪!有暴力、暴動傾向的團體和他們的頭頭,不時不會來這麽一下,來團結羣眾,糾合戰鬪力,才會令人奇怪呢 ! 這是都市游擊隊,街頭巷戰訓練的一部份。要不這樣,怎麼有朝一日,義無反顧,幹它一回,「陣前起義」呢! [...]

More Info
賴總統能夠從內外交困中突圍嗎?

賴總統能夠從內外交困中突圍嗎?

在經歷關稅、大罷免失敗等內外打擊之後,賴總統的形象和信任度受到嚴重衝擊,多個民調都顯示出賴總統的支持度大幅下降,並且警示未來可能繼續下降,不僅如此,賴總統日前要求執政黨立院總召柯建銘為大罷免失敗負起政治責任,為柯建銘所拒絕,不少觀察家認為賴總統剩餘任期非常有可能深陷「令不出總統府」的跛腳鴨困境。   [...]

More Info
老台北的公共浴室文化

老台北的公共浴室文化

      [...]

More Info
如何解決台灣勞動力不足之議題

如何解決台灣勞動力不足之議題

你有沒有發現,最近身邊很多人開始討論台灣的人口問題?像是生育率變低啦、少子化,甚至有人說未來找不到人來工作,整個社會會「老化」得很嚴重。這些聽起來好像是很遙遠的問題,但其實真的離我們越來越近了。 [...]

More Info

搜尋

精選文章

川習會的中美矛盾是戰略,不是貿易!

2017-04-08 韓非

八仙樂園爆炸案:缺乏常識造成的災難

2015-06-28 異想

彰化縣民輪替後的哀與愁

2016-03-06 許家瑋

新文明病:儲物症(Hoarding disorder)似正在增加

2015-04-13 楊庸一

訂閱本站

輸入你的電子郵件訂閱新文章並接收新通知。

Powered by WordPress | theme Dream Way
Powered by WordPress | theme Dream Way