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

拒絕戒嚴思想復甦,捍衛台灣民主底線

國民黨在今天處理得死刑公投,又即將在下周處理其所提出的反戒嚴公投,但這完全是荒謬的歷史顛倒,更違反憲政原則。依據《中華民國憲法》第62條,立法院職責是立法、審查預算、監督政府,而非政黨謀求自身權力利益的平台。特別是反戒嚴的公投,涉及總統職權,卻被藍白操作成政黨失去總統大位後,用來擴權的工具,這嚴重違反權力分立原則。至於戒嚴,真正的祖師爺是中國國民黨,卻從未見該黨真心認錯懺悔。 首先,曾經實施戒嚴的是中國國民黨,而民主進步黨從成立之初便致力於爭取解除戒嚴,如今卻由當年實施戒嚴的政黨,主導反戒嚴公投,這不僅顛倒歷史,更是對台灣民主運動歷史的侮辱。試想,一個曾經實施戒嚴、壓迫人民自由的政黨,如今自稱要保障人民不再經歷戒嚴,這種言論與作為,如何能取信於民? 再者,國民黨在公投提案中聲稱希望台灣青年不要因戰爭而家毀人亡,但歷史事實卻顯示,過去真正使台灣人民家毀人亡的正是國民黨自己。從1947年開始,國民黨長期以戒嚴狀態濫捕濫殺,造成許多青年無辜犧牲。今天竟然由國民黨來提出「反戒嚴」,猶如兇手自稱要替受害者主持正義,這無疑是對歷史的諷刺與羞辱。 此外,國民黨今日聲稱反戰反戒嚴,事實上,歷史上的戰爭和暴力事件多數由國民黨所主導。1953年國民黨發動的東山島海戰,國軍死亡831人,皆是在國民黨撤退來台後發動;1987年七三慘案,手無寸鐵的難民遭國民黨政府屠殺,當時執政者蔣經國,甚至未對肇事者做任何懲處。這樣一個歷史包袱沉重的政黨,從未向台灣人民誠懇道歉,更從不承認自己就是暴行兇手,寧願選擇遺忘。如今,卻宣稱要避免戰爭與戒嚴,這樣的說辭,令人難以接受。 更令人擔憂的是,國民黨透過烏克蘭戰爭事件,試圖將其反戒嚴訴求與國際情勢混淆,卻忽略了烏俄戰爭的真正本質:俄羅斯的軍事侵略,伴隨思想改造、語言消滅及民族壓迫。回顧歷史,國民黨在台灣實施的正是此種統治方式,包括禁止台灣人說台灣話、推動思想控制,這些歷史的罪行,至今尚未獲得充分的道歉與懺悔。 事實上,若戰爭真的發生,受到傷害的不只是青年,而是整個國家與所有人民,包括現在協助中國進行政治宣傳的人士也將無法倖免。國民黨甚至在公投主文中出現嚴重錯誤,凸顯出其對自身歷史的心虛與不敢面對,這也正是造成國會紛亂與民主品質下降的原因之一。 最後,必須嚴肅提醒各位,台灣曾遭受長達38年的戒嚴統治,是全世界最長的軍事戒嚴。而這是國民黨為政黨利益而施加的暴政,造成許多民主前輩不惜生命與青春抗爭,才終於換來今日的民主自由。民進黨堅持捍衛民主自由,絕不會允許戒嚴思想再次復甦。我們今日的反戒嚴,不僅僅是一句口號,更是以行動堅決防止歷史重演,確保台灣民主永不倒退。 作者:慎之

國民黨發「小確幸」反罷免真能奏效?

大罷免運動即將進入最終章,將有多達30席國民黨立委面臨第三階段投票,可能是另類版的期中選舉,若國民黨團要在這次改選維持優勢,必須要確定補選不能被拿走6席立委,確保有八成勝率才能過關。而為了度過難關,立院國民黨團選擇放假、普發現金、勤跑基層力求度過難關,究竟能不能奏效呢? 根據TVBS近日民調,關於大罷免的議題,支持方為30%,另有58%反對罷免,假如數據為真,看似反對罷免方較占優勢,但若30%的民眾全數出來投票,若58%民眾僅有一半的人出來投反對罷免票,那支持罷免方將會大獲全勝,因此藍營要贏不能只掌握民意方向,更重要的是動員人出來投票,那麼放假、普發現金、勤跑基層真的有效嗎? 首先來看5天假法案,不否認的是5天假確實能減輕勞工的負擔,甚至能讓勞工少用5天特休,確實是讓受雇者受惠的政策,雇主相對而言權益受損。雖然這個在5月9日通過的法案確實有助於提升國民黨立委正面形象,但是世界壯年運動會即將到來,加上罷免假連署的新聞持續冒出,新聞效應能否延續到預定七、八月舉行的三階投票仍很難說。 除了五天假以外的下一個法案是普發現金一萬元,身為下一個利多級政策,一萬元可以抵銷民眾不滿物價上漲的情緒,若一個家庭有四戶,等於白白獲得四萬元,約上班族一個月的月薪,這樣的政策肯定獲得台灣人民的喜愛,民進黨團也很難以反對。 雖然普發現金政策等於放煙火,沒辦法對民生帶來直接幫助,但可以緩解人民對藍營立委的不滿,但同樣普發現金的新聞也面臨世壯運、假連署等其他新聞排擠,如何確保新聞效應將是一大挑戰。 另外,藍白立院黨團確實利多連發,但是「上有政策,下有對策」的反對思維也因運而生,有支持罷免的民眾鼓吹「領歸領,投歸投」,如果反對方只想用小確幸收買對方,恐怕也不容易。另外當5天假法案過關後,藍白可能面臨資方的反彈,但身為亡命之徒的藍白也只能概括承受。 因此就我來看,若想用5天假與一萬元之類的「小確幸」說服民眾出來投反對罷免並不太容易。藍營要守住國會席次,最根本的辦法是勤跑陸戰與出錢綁樁,動員出更多人投票反罷免。 而民進黨面對藍白的小確幸攻勢,切記勿只站在批評的角度,也要去同理這些「政策受惠者」的心聲,並要保證罷免藍委以後,應有的預算福利都不會打折,去抵銷藍白發小確幸的正當性。 作者/粥董

邊緣人們:改變台灣的推進器,會是林沛祥們意想不到的巨浪!

大罷免剩下最後一席,基隆成為最後35區,火力相挺的地方。原因不只是,因為基隆是最後一個截止的立委選區,更大的原因是,林沛祥們的添加柴火,使得邊緣人們,都站出來了! 林沛祥的發言,很難想像中國國民黨在沒有大罷免,或是大罷免失敗下,還會做出什麼喪心病狂的事情。連連署的民眾都是邊緣人,也說得出口,代表他就是藐視民意。這樣的民意代表,罷掉只是剛剛好而已。 有趣的是,剛好因為大罷免,選民可以直接看到,這些一票一票選出來的立法委員們,有多麼傲慢、有多麼誇張。將選民當作免洗餐具,用完就丟,還自己添柴火,繼續製造社會對立。真是有夠邊緣,眛於事實。 到底,基隆最後能否順利過關呢?到底,在面對中國國民黨的反噬,台灣人可以怎麼做呢?底下,將從幾個不同面向來探討:「1. 基隆作為最後一個罷免區,正好對焦去年罷免失敗的契機;2. 林沛祥們的惡行惡狀,會成為大宣傳的關鍵;3. 三階需要更多的大宣傳,大罷免才會大成功。」 首先,基隆作為最後一個罷免區,正好對焦去年罷免失敗的契機。這次檢調的偵辦跟追查,已經確定了基隆市政府,是介入人民大罷免的黑手。可以推想,去年的大罷免,想必也是用這隻黑手,去掌控最後的投票結果。這不只值得今年的大罷免借鏡,更需要讓民眾更多地了解。畢竟,罷免是人民行使的直接民權。剝奪大罷免的權利,等於威權復辟。這是對民主與自由的傷害! 再者,林沛祥們的惡行惡狀,會成為大宣傳的關鍵。林沛祥會囂張,來自於其家族在基隆的勢力,還有罷免門檻未到的“靠勢”,甚至是去年罷免謝國樑失敗的倚仗。這讓今年基隆無論如何,都必須作出正確的決定。看看已經龜縮起來、頻頻道歉的花蓮;看看一直辦活動,要挽回民心的徐巧芯,這都不難發現,只有在超標的民意出來連署與制衡之下,這些爛委們,才會故作悔改。然而,從他們在立法院的表現,依舊倒行逆施,可以發現,這些都只是幌子。因此,人民要更加堅定,讓大罷免宣傳加溫,去拉抬民眾的關注程度,來促成最後的勝利。 最後,三階需要更多的大宣傳,大罷免才會大成功。民生法案,其實正是大罷免的痛點。對於民眾來說,跟生活息息相關的議題,才是真正“打中”他們要害的關鍵。尤其,原本有的補助跟福利,一夕之間被剝奪了,更是感到氣憤。以長遠來說,正是因為中國國民黨為中國共產黨馬首是瞻,才會做出害台、毀台的各種惡行。而這是需要讓更多人了解的。因為這個中國國民黨,早就被滲透了、被統戰了,被下蠱了! 從改變台灣的推進器,會是林沛祥們意想不到的巨浪看邊緣人們,可以發現:「去年罷免失敗,會成為今年基隆修正的好契機;林沛祥們的惡行惡狀,是中國共產黨被滲透的主要宣傳;大罷免、大成功,有賴更多的大宣傳!」 作者:黃宗玄

民眾黨快來收割國民黨的「青蔥」!

民眾黨有個千載難逢的機會,可以收割國民黨的「青蔥」。這可不是說民眾黨居心叵測,在國民黨背後開鎗。怪都要怪國民黨把他們的「青年團」好說歹說的勸誘,甚麼時代考驗青年,青年創造時代,黨旗仍然飛揚,這是革命的黃埔! 不幸,這是哪個時代了?呂伯大夢未醒,一手遮天,作姦犯科。一旦情況不對,被人逮個正著,國民黨旣得利益集團,立即縮手,「死道友,不死貧道」!情況危急時,水深火熱的「年輕理想主義者」、「革命的後備部隊」,都希望層峰可以指點迷津,如何轉進,卻連黨主席都連絡不上,找不到,哀莫大於心死 ! 青年團所承受的「橫逆」,連滿身肌肉、刺青的「館」姓武術總教頭,都看不下去,他說:「我被民進黨騙了」也就算了!眾望所歸的國民黨,今如是!他滿嘴唏噓,「這種事不會在民眾黨發生」,大有朱立倫,不如黃國昌的感慨! 「館」爺微言大義,意有所指。國民黨的青蔥輩可以稍加揣摸,解答不是那麼困難。不久前有政論達人說:民眾黨的「小草部隊」會被整編,拼入國民黨的「青蔥青年團」。時勢變易,現在看來未必如此,反倒是國民黨的「青蔥青年團」轉向歸順,而成民眾黨「小草部隊」的新生力軍。 讀者大君一定很納悶:一向咆嘯,出言不遜的黃國昌,怎麼近來沈默的很,是不是最近的「政治生意」做得很成功,努力加餐飯,可不要令「別人」驚覺:原來敵人不是只站在面前,背後隨時會翻臉的「友人」更可怕 !「館」大爺你不要再多嘴了,言多必失 ,害的國昌兄弟難以為人 ! 「大罷免」對民眾黨的好處,難以衡量。如果第三段真鎗實刀、你死我活的選舉,藍綠形勢相持不下,民眾黨一定會排出自家人馬。試若民眾黨現有的八席若能再撈得四、五席,從此非同小可,哪需要再靠別人摸頭,三國演義的局面必成。國民黨的內亂會更形嚴重,因為「反主流派」有個和人合併的出口,道不同不相為謀,—— 人世滄桑,國民黨有可能成為「小三」? 黃國昌主席,人民垢病你沒有中心思想、是可左可右的「偽君子」。這在爾虞我詐的藍色政治世界裏,倒可算是「美德」:順勢操作的「機會主義者」,反而有機會異軍突起,成者為王! 昔人說「䝂子成其名」,良有已耶!所以民眾黨快來收割國民黨的「青蔥」,名正而言順,不收割必遭天譴,這是民眾黨能成其大的第一步 ! 作者: 徐吁

Recent Posts

拒絕戒嚴思想復甦,捍衛台灣民主底線

拒絕戒嚴思想復甦,捍衛台灣民主底線

國民黨在今天處理得死刑公投,又即將在下周處理其所提出的反戒嚴公投,但這完全是荒謬的歷史顛倒,更違反憲政原則。依據《中華民國憲法》第62條,立法院職責是立法、審查預算、監督政府,而非政黨謀求自身權力利益的平台。特別是反戒嚴的公投,涉及總統職權,卻被藍白操作成政黨失去總統大位後,用來擴權的工具,這嚴重違反權力分立原則。至於戒嚴,真正的祖師爺是中國國民黨,卻從未見該黨真心認錯懺悔。 [...]

More Info
國民黨發「小確幸」反罷免真能奏效?

國民黨發「小確幸」反罷免真能奏效?

大罷免運動即將進入最終章,將有多達30席國民黨立委面臨第三階段投票,可能是另類版的期中選舉,若國民黨團要在這次改選維持優勢,必須要確定補選不能被拿走6席立委,確保有八成勝率才能過關。而為了度過難關,立院國民黨團選擇放假、普發現金、勤跑基層力求度過難關,究竟能不能奏效呢? [...]

More Info
邊緣人們:改變台灣的推進器,會是林沛祥們意想不到的巨浪!

邊緣人們:改變台灣的推進器,會是林沛祥們意想不到的巨浪!

大罷免剩下最後一席,基隆成為最後35區,火力相挺的地方。原因不只是,因為基隆是最後一個截止的立委選區,更大的原因是,林沛祥們的添加柴火,使得邊緣人們,都站出來了! 林沛祥的發言,很難想像中國國民黨在沒有大罷免,或是大罷免失敗下,還會做出什麼喪心病狂的事情。連連署的民眾都是邊緣人,也說得出口,代表他就是藐視民意。這樣的民意代表,罷掉只是剛剛好而已。 [...]

More Info
民眾黨快來收割國民黨的「青蔥」!

民眾黨快來收割國民黨的「青蔥」!

民眾黨有個千載難逢的機會,可以收割國民黨的「青蔥」。這可不是說民眾黨居心叵測,在國民黨背後開鎗。怪都要怪國民黨把他們的「青年團」好說歹說的勸誘,甚麼時代考驗青年,青年創造時代,黨旗仍然飛揚,這是革命的黃埔! [...]

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