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

填鴨教育中的喘息服務

公共政策平台上,有人提出國高中上課時間改為早上10點到下午4點,所持理由是慢性睡眠會導致學生憂鬱和自殺,很快的連署人數破萬,也逼的教育部出面回應。而此一新聞多家媒體紛紛報導,留言也百家爭鳴,有人從未來就業如何面對去探討,教育工作者從排課去分析難行,更有人稱只會多出時間去打電玩,但真正的問題是填鴨教育不死,以及產業引導學校力量強大,最後體制內的學校教育永遠是罐頭工廠,找不到人生自我興趣,當然更喪失學習樂趣。   表面上自教改後台灣可說是人人都可上大學,只是你有無時間和金錢,若認真些拿個碩士也不難,而在少子化威脅私校生存下,政府還開辦一些專班從東南亞引進所謂「移工學生」。但是有一點無法否認,那就是擠進明星學校,還有大學就讀科系能否和當下高科技產業接軌,依然成了學生選擇學校,還有學校吸引學生和資金的幕後主導力量。此種情形如同數十年前,加工出口階段政府鼓勵開辦職校,去吸引學生就讀提供產業所需一樣,去學校讀書一路走來,就是為了生存與賺錢,只不過今日在竹科興起下,又高度傾向於電子業和半導體,但仍是職場牛馬人生。   那就算國高中真的如發起人所願和萬人所盼,改成朝10晚4上下學,有錢的家長為了不讓子女,在升學之路個人武裝落後或不足,依然會把子女往補習班送,一如今日周六日,又或者放學後,一群國高中生在補習班中,不斷練就如何快速解題技巧。至於教改目標,要讓人人在教育中找到自我專長和人生興趣,早就消失的無影無蹤,只要瞧一瞧學校為了招生,都硬要在校名中冠上科技兩字,國高中校長也把畢業生,有多少人考上前三名明星高中或台清交,當成辦學有成,然後像「中猴」般在跑馬燈上狂賀,那改成朝10晚4上下學,真能跳脫升學罐頭工廠嗎。所以才會有一些有錢有閒人,去寫歐洲那國教育都如何教的書,但到國外讀書,又有多少台灣家庭能夠呢。    而此種教育填鴨也不是只有台灣,鄰國的南韓和日本也一樣慘烈,有人稱受儒家影響太深,人民、產業和政府,又高度迷信文憑乃實力。但還不如說,學習精神和人生意義,在既有的學校教育體制中,已經消失不存,剩下來就是努力當學霸,才能有功名利祿,擺脫魯蛇與躺平的廢材嘲諷。當整個台灣學校教育,家中父母都如此,那改成幾點上下學,都是外行人的假議題罷了。 作者:張勳慶

「背骨者」會天高海濶嗎 ?

柯文則胞妹柯美蘭,為文旣然其兄已經恢復自由身,要小草們「生養休息」,不要再四處抗議「司法不公」,以免和法律衝突而不自知,陷乃兄於不義,使其官司更為不利。 這是「明白者」冷靜的建言,可不是多數民眾黨大人和小草們的公議。法庭終於展示權威,法官下達嚴重警告:小草們敢在海庭外繼續喧嘩咆嘯,製造是非,硬把聲浪,傳至海庭內,意圖干擾雙方攻防,左右法官的審理和心証,後果自負! 民眾黨那位下野「指日可待」的黨主席,敢繼續躲在立委「言論免責權」憲法條文保護下,繼續以紫亂朱,為非作歹嗎 ?他當然會的,他不製造聲浪,他就沒有前途。聲浪就是他的政治生命,但他的手法會更為隱密、低調。 例如說,他現在不敢和柯教主平起平坐;若是同行,必落後半步。需要發言時,必遵照「柯語錄」,循規蹈矩。要一位素性「背骨者」平日不把「天高地厚」當作一回事,一時要其行為如此,大河上下頓失茫茫,也真會難為他了 ! 難為雖是難為,臥薪嘗膽嗎!來日才會天高海闊,到時那位姓柯的又算啥 ?所以這齣爾虞我詐的「半啞劇」會演到明年中,才可望結束。會不會「背骨者」從此有幸天高海濶,大海航行需舵手,就要看民眾黨人的「民格」和「民智」了! 國民黨人會不會也東施效顰?大罷免的結局,許多人對台灣人輕重不分的「民智」有所保留,尤其是自以為是的年輕世代。他們以為選舉有如玩電動,隨時可以 reset,再玩一次 ! 這也為甚麼大罷免的結局,會驚動 AIT,全員傾巢而出,趕忙和藍、白黨「懇談」,有人說是「警告」:扒根的事,誰都無法忍受 !誰都要照顧自己的「關鍵性利益」,國務院新近頒佈「台灣地位未定論」,豈是偶然 ! 作者: 胡嚴

Ko Chih-en( 柯志恩 ): A Habitual Player of Dirty Tricks

Ko Chih-en ( 柯志恩 ) staged a photo-op in Meinong, Kaohsiung, accusing Chen Chi-mai (陳其邁) of covering up illegal sand mining and even dubbing the excavated farmland the “Meinong Grand […]

國會多數的立法笑話:台灣《財劃法》荒唐劇

立法院去年底,在國會多數的在野黨「卓越領導」下,強行通過了新版《財政收支劃分法》。這部法案堪稱台灣立法史上的奇葩,不僅完美演繹了何謂「無視專業」,更以其「神來一筆」的公式設計,成功癱瘓了國家財政,讓高達新台幣365億元的經費成為「立法僵屍」,動彈不得。 首先,在立法程序上,這部法案完全展現了什麼叫「效率至上」。不需要公開、不需要透明、更不需要專業審議,只需憑藉多數優勢,就能如風雷般通過。這種「多數黨專政」的奇景,充分體現了美國政治學者杜瓦傑「批判」缺乏公開、透明且專業的審議,憑藉多數優勢直接通過,徹底背離了民主立法的協商精神。 反觀那些「落後」的民主國家,例如:德國,財政法案的修訂總要經過冗長且無聊的專家委員會討論,還得確保什麼「科學性」與「公平性」,簡直多此一舉。台灣的在野黨以實際行動證明,國會不是為民謀福的殿堂,而是政治鬥爭的「最佳擂台」。 其次,該法案的內容設計更是荒謬至極。不僅在分配公式上「巧妙」地獨厚自家政黨執政縣市,更因其小學數學知識的貧乏,弄錯了分母基數,導致執行上窒礙難行。我們的在野黨更展現了「凡事賴給政府」的態度,好康的,趕快拿走,有問題中央解決,事權全部丟給中央。也就出現台北市長蔣萬安、新北市長侯友宜、台中市長盧秀燕明明每年將多出約三、四百億預算,卻為6、7億元的學校電費哭窮的「表演」。 令人匪夷所思的是,明明是藍白立委闖的禍,藍白16位縣市首長靖召開聯合記者會批評政府。搶著當領頭羊的台中市長盧秀燕批判政府要放下屠刀,認為政府刻意刁難公式的解讀。 真的是政府刁難公式解讀嗎?假設台中市長盧秀燕為激勵士氣,決定提撥1000萬元的績效獎金,要分配給市府內部的 20個局處(例如:法制局、交通局等)。獎金分配辦法白紙黑字寫著,各局處之分配比例,依據該局處的年度考評分數,占「各縣市全體局處」年度考評總分的百分比計算。問題來了,獎金的分配對象是市府內部的20個局處,但計算分母卻是各縣市全體局處,約莫440個局處。 結果主計處一算,發現20個局處的考評總分僅佔全部考評總分的4.5%,高達95.5%、955萬的獎金成了「幽靈獎金」。請問盧市長,你會跟主計處說,我們不要「拘泥」於分母,直接把這1000萬,按照那20個局處彼此間的分數比例分掉就好,不要故意刁難嗎? 最後,解方何在?在野黨胡亂立法,藍白兩黨就該負起全部的負責,哪有在野黨縣市首長嚷嚷著民進黨政府要全盤負責的道理。這就像是數學老師在黑板上出了一道錯到離譜的題目,結果還叫學生想辦法解出來,不然就等著考零分一樣。 這場鬧劇的始作俑者,正是國會中那群掌握多數的在野黨。請主動承認錯誤,立即啟動修法程序,並回歸專業,邀請真正的專家學者參與。行政院別傻傻當代罪羔羊,這筆爛帳,誰種的因,誰就該承擔果。 作者:秦靖  

Recent Posts

填鴨教育中的喘息服務

填鴨教育中的喘息服務

[...]

More Info
「背骨者」會天高海濶嗎 ?

「背骨者」會天高海濶嗎 ?

柯文則胞妹柯美蘭,為文旣然其兄已經恢復自由身,要小草們「生養休息」,不要再四處抗議「司法不公」,以免和法律衝突而不自知,陷乃兄於不義,使其官司更為不利。 這是「明白者」冷靜的建言,可不是多數民眾黨大人和小草們的公議。法庭終於展示權威,法官下達嚴重警告:小草們敢在海庭外繼續喧嘩咆嘯,製造是非,硬把聲浪,傳至海庭內,意圖干擾雙方攻防,左右法官的審理和心証,後果自負! [...]

More Info
Ko Chih-en( 柯志恩 ): A Habitual Player of Dirty Tricks

Ko Chih-en( 柯志恩 ): A Habitual Player of Dirty Tricks

Ko Chih-en ( 柯志恩 ) staged a photo-op in Meinong, Kaohsiung, accusing Chen Chi-mai (陳其邁) of covering up illegal sand mining and even dubbing the excavated farmland the “Meinong Grand […]

More Info
國會多數的立法笑話:台灣《財劃法》荒唐劇

國會多數的立法笑話:台灣《財劃法》荒唐劇

立法院去年底,在國會多數的在野黨「卓越領導」下,強行通過了新版《財政收支劃分法》。這部法案堪稱台灣立法史上的奇葩,不僅完美演繹了何謂「無視專業」,更以其「神來一筆」的公式設計,成功癱瘓了國家財政,讓高達新台幣365億元的經費成為「立法僵屍」,動彈不得。 [...]

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