新公民議會

社會觀察 x 獨立評論 x 多元觀點 x 公共書寫 x 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

析論三足鼎立下的選舉大勢:談賴侯柯的勝利方程式

今年年初不論是國民黨、民進黨、民眾黨的總統後選人人選皆已底定。然而若細談這三黨候選人,分別是:侯友宜、賴清德、柯文哲之選舉戰略,則發現其重要的政治訊息。 首先,國民黨黨主席朱立倫自初選前,亦將郭台銘拉入其中,希望透過此人的投入,使侯友宜在新北市繼續「侯侯做代誌」與參與總統大選之中擇一而仕。如今六月初國民黨內部基本上已確定由侯友宜出線。然而,細論侯友宜之背景,此人為警專校體系出身,亦從基層爬上。就以實務層面而言,他歷經五年新北市市長歷練,基層公務歷練,早非全然的政治素人。此外,在多次媒體的場合,他很清楚「表態」意味著失分,也與他個人「實務經驗豐富」的形象背道而馳。侯雨其政治幕僚打算以「戰略模糊」加以「隱短」。事實上,這個策略是奏效的,因為台灣社會喜歡溫良恭儉讓,並在重大事件中表示陽剛且果決的特質。然而能否在各種「攻防」中得分,仍需考驗侯友宜在後續議題的發揮。整體而言,他其實需要一個能扛住砲火的總幹事,能代表他的立場並且與之交鋒。從目前的新聞風向與個人公開發言,在不得罪深藍與淺藍之間鞏固基本盤,並且在大選最後的時刻一舉整併柯文哲的票源,或許是其思考的重要戰略方針。 其次,民進黨的總統候選人,自2020年大選時與蔡英文團隊正式交鋒。在網路輿論被貼為「老綠男」的代表、「台獨金孫」等,具有訕笑意味的詞彙。然而在該次選舉,卻能迅速與蔡英文整合,使民進黨在總統大選獲得空前勝利。相對於蔡英文的「多元‧溫柔‧堅定」等柔性特質,賴清德既無法蕭規曹隨,細究此人設亦需要當時的社會風向。在當時,蔡英文承諾並推動同性婚姻合法化,這無疑提供了她重要的政治舞台。回過頭來,賴清德面臨的是更加嚴峻的國際局勢,臺灣的國家安全正受中共壓迫。換句話說,他必須展現其「整合」力量。這幾個禮拜身為民進黨黨主席以「民主大聯盟」以團結臺灣各黨各派勢力,試圖將「整合」的效益發揮極致。不過近期該黨性騷擾風波仍須謹慎處理,在繼承蔡英文的多元價值、性別平權的立場下,展現出能向社會大眾交代的能力。換句話說,民進黨雖然在支持度仍維持領先態勢,此次衝擊如能迅速止血,那麼「打斷手骨顛倒勇」獲得最終大選,亦是指日可待。 最後,民眾黨的總統候選人柯文哲,其整體策略不在於勝選。而是如何維持兩黨爭執中的砝碼。事實上,柯文哲有參與此次選舉的重要理由,即避免該黨泡沫化,維持政黨票,以鞏固不分區立委席次。然而,若細究其可能獲勝的方程式,共有三部。第一步,即獲取淺藍與泛藍票源。其採取的手段可能是透過與郭台銘合作,作為重要的政治資源。第二步,透過積極回應議題,以「批藍三成打綠七成」的方式,將侯友宜的靜默,作為自身爭取藍營票源的跳板。最終,若能引發藍營棄保,那麼贏得總統大選,亦非不可能。 然綜觀這三位候選人的個人特質與政黨,如要面對臺灣在國防外交等壓力,仍需思考其黨是否具備完善的政治人才庫,以及上任後的「即戰力」的能力。在蔡英文總統任內,在美中對峙下,其投入歐美日民主同盟陣營。如果要維持或超越這個路線,或許應思考三位候選人在這些議題的回應。最終,不論哪一位候選人獲得勝利,仍希望能將臺灣帶向穩定、安全的局面。 作者/YC

換侯是假議題

《美麗島電子報》最新總統大選民調結果顯示,侯友宜在「三角督」中墊底,僅獲18.3%的支持率,回顧2015年國民黨黨主席朱立倫發動撤銷該黨總統候選人洪秀柱的提名時,彼時洪秀柱的民調是16.7%,侯友宜和當年換柱防線僅距1.6%的支持率,故輿論熱議國民黨可能將上演「換柱2.0」,意即撤銷侯友宜提名改派其他有勝望的人選,然筆者認為,換侯只是假議題,理由如下: 一、侯友宜與洪秀柱的條件迥異:2015年國民黨換柱的背景,是每位有志於總統大位的黨內天王,都自認自己的民調可勝過洪秀柱,事實上,洪秀柱僅具立法委員與立法院副院長的資歷,既無中央部會歷練,也未擔任過民選地方行政首長,挑戰總統大位的政治份量著實不足;但侯友宜曾任警政署長、新北市副市長,兩度當選新北市長也都突破百萬票,得票率更從2018的57%上升至去年的62%,顯見其歷練完整且有強大的民意基礎,堪稱國民黨內最強天王,放眼藍營,誰的民望足以和侯爭鋒? 二、黨主席朱立倫不願再重蹈換柱覆轍:換柱事件讓當時作為黨主席的朱立倫因總統候選人提名作業反覆不定而飽受黨內批評,重挫朱立倫政治威信,甚至朱立倫後來也多次公開向洪秀柱致歉;換柱事件殷鑒不遠,今又回鍋黨主席的朱立倫斷無可能讓慘劇重演,讓自己成為藍營敗選的頭號戰犯。更何況,假使換侯成真而「侯下朱上」,那數度宣稱2024年總統大選最強名單「沒有包括我,沒有我」的朱立倫,豈非自打嘴巴?另倘若是「侯下郭上」,間接承認國民黨徵召的人選並非最強棒,國民黨黨中央的公信力將不復存在! 縱使國民黨不換侯,但如果侯友宜的民調如溜滑梯般繼續下跌,而郭台銘又持續「挺柯抑侯」,侯友宜的民調實有可能長期屈居第三,屆時不僅無法發揮「母雞帶小雞」效益,反而國民黨立委參選人未來還可能要「小雞帶母雞」幫侯友宜抬轎,問題是面對選區內綠營和民眾黨候選人的挑戰,國民黨的小雞恐怕都自身難保了,何來拉抬母雞的餘裕? 若2024年國民黨輸掉總統,也未能成為國會多數黨,朱立倫勢難保住黨主席大位,失去黨主席,其政治生命等同宣告終結,這恐怕是有政治精算師之稱的朱立倫,此刻正盤算與苦惱的! 作者/王昱培

兔子不吃窩邊草?

世說:兔子不吃窩邊草。連兔子都知道窩邊草不能啃食,自己的窩才會草濃茂秘,躲在窩裏,要幹就幹嘛,歲月靜好,不容易被天敵發現。 不知道是不是地球暖化,人類的智能因而每況愈下,兔子為求自保,不敢做的,某些人類居然違反生物自保的本能,堂而皇之,公然為之,把自己窩邊的濃鬱,啃個精光。 難道是貪圖方便,美色當前,不啃白不啃;還是天氣熱了,內分泌亢奮,激素多產,不能及時就範,只好隨時準備「應急」,以備不時之需! 舉個例,今日有媒體報導:一名女導演指控某一政黨要人性騷,襲胸,並且暗示他能幫助她完成理想,只要她可以讓他偶而「任性」一下!所以,藉勢藉端,把窩邊草,啃食精光,只是「偶而」的「任性」,沒有甚麼大不了!就像俗事煩心,晚上想東想西,輾轉反側一樣,睡不著,只要偶而任性,就可恢復正常人生! 媒體曾報導台灣有1/3 人口,晚上必需吞服「安眠藥」才能就眠。衞福部的大小官員請注意,很快有許多國民,尤其是從事政治行業的,可能要求醫生開具「內分泌失調」的藥單,當然要健保給付。衞福部可要未雨綢繆,準備好庫存,不能讓政治人物的內分泌不能調和,無藥可吞,氣急攻心,在立法院內大聲吆喝,丟東丟西,院內一定又是一團混亂! 談到調節「內分泌失調」的藥物,胡某人和其他服過正規義務役的役男們都有直接經驗:一下新兵營,剃完頭,就受令排隊打針,只見凶猛如狼似虎的「教育班長」,見針頭如見毒蛇、惡蠍,避之唯恐不及;一下部隊不久,又排隊,再打一針,小兵們終於明白,此針就是班長口中所謂的「乖乖針」,一針刺下來,看你敢「不乖」:敢不一個口令,一個動作,看是誰家的小兄弟膽敢「妄舉」! 所以要是常常「妄舉」的政治人物,衞福部應該優先提供藥物,口服的更佳。從此立法院問政和答詢,一團和氣,必為全球民主政治的典範。萬一真的惡形昭彰、無可救藥的反社會之徒,立法院袞袞諸公,也可特別立法,犯行重大達三次者,可依法使用「去勢」針藥,誰說立法院亂象不能解決! 有件事作者胡某人不得其解的是這些性騷、性侵的加害者,絕大多數都是男性。是不是男性一旦成熟,就永遠「內心泌失調」需要偶而「任性」一下。有醫生是這樣解釋:男人身體的機能本來就比女姓差,人家未必會時時失調,女姓的平均生命比男性多了四、五歲,就是証據! 社會學家卻有另類獨特的見解:流行的社會文化是會影響身體的內心泌的。女性也可巾幗不讓鬚眉,藉勢藉端,得理不饒人!某政黨不是出了幾位這樣雄壯威武的女政客,惹了她們,可要佛擋殺佛,血流成河! 撲朔迷離,不知雌雄的日子可快要到了。到時「偶而」「任性」一下,吃窩邊草,社會版頭條的,不再是雄兔仔的專利:這可能才是「兩性平權」的開始,文明進化的鐵証! 作者:胡嚴

為什麼性平風波不必大局為重:談價值、觀念的革命

近來政壇掀起國外曾有過的ME TOO風潮,台灣從政治圈到學界、文化界涉入的相關人等不知凡幾,這不只是一場台灣前所未有的風潮,更是一次重要的價值與觀念革命,重新思索人與人互動的界線與分寸。而這之所以這與大局為重無關,就在於這場運動的大局就是全國人民,不應摻雜政治陰謀論,而是應當回到人性的根本。 首先,這場風波當中受害者其實多為女性,許多男性在互動上長期由於父權文化脈絡,以及社會賦予的男強女弱刻板形象,使得許多男性為施展性別上的陽剛特徵,經常冒犯異性而毫不自知,甚至引以為傲。這種錯誤的觀念,其實是亞洲長年父系社會的殘留陰影,只有搞清楚自己錯在哪,這場運動才不會只是數人頭的獵巫,卻無助於化解問題的本質。 因此,就如民進黨主席賴清德所說,不贊成這些事件循司法途徑。因為,在司法當中更重視的是證據法則,而不全然憑藉當事人感受而論罪,特別是在封閉性高的處所,或是權力不對等的敵意環境,或是利用職權施予恩惠的錯誤情境,都可能造成加害者逍遙法外,被害者苦無充分證據而黯然神傷。因此,唯有透過行政調查,以及加強知識性的教育,才有可能根本性的解決問題。 故校園教育就相當重要,而這又必須體現在對所有性別、性傾向者的尊重。例如校園中就應當建立一個性別友善的社會,更不應在教育者言行中,出現對於特定性別的刻板印象,尤其不可從小縱容或建立霸凌文化,這種行為模式長久下來都只會加深更不正常的性別互動模式。 再者,社會結構不可以縱容性騷擾及職場霸凌文化。特別是亞洲社會,經常將錯誤的應對或管理方式,理解成是吃苦耐勞,其本質就是霸凌與性騷擾,特別是職場的精神霸凌已經習以為常,某些企業管理者,更以他人的生理狀態作為判別工作認真與否的標準,都是徹底的誤讀價值。尤其莫把企業財報作為領導文化的聖經,因為對人與人間的尊重,應該是做人最基本的條件。這與企業高大與否、賺錢與否都無關,一個重視人倫常理的社會,自然能獲歡迎、財報定會不俗。這也是近年國際社會推動ESG評鑑的重要核心價值。 最後,這場性平風波,我們都希望不要界定在政治或特定領域,而是應該成為一場社會的思想革命。這當中沒有誰得利,反之是應該不能再有任何一個受害者。當然政黨作為國家執政的來源,在候選人的篩選上,與異性健康正常的互動,應該是最基本的價值,不要提名有偷拍或是性騷爭議者,更是最關鍵的態度。這場社會思辯的運動,政黨能否應對得宜,關係的不是選舉勝負而是台灣的未來! 作者/慎之

Recent Posts

台灣為何還要每年紀念六四天安門?

台灣為何還要每年紀念六四天安門?

多數台灣人皆認為台灣不屬於中國,但為何我們每年仍要紀念發生在中共統治下的天安門事件呢?隨著台灣與中國漸行漸遠,每年的六月四日總是有人會提出這樣的問題,但事實上這是意義相當重大的。不僅關乎亞洲碩果僅存的民主,更是關乎台灣的未來。 [...]

More Info
析論三足鼎立下的選舉大勢:談賴侯柯的勝利方程式

析論三足鼎立下的選舉大勢:談賴侯柯的勝利方程式

今年年初不論是國民黨、民進黨、民眾黨的總統後選人人選皆已底定。然而若細談這三黨候選人,分別是:侯友宜、賴清德、柯文哲之選舉戰略,則發現其重要的政治訊息。 [...]

More Info
如何看台版Me Too運動的發酵

如何看台版Me Too運動的發酵

近日台灣政壇不斷爆出性醜聞,許多政治圈內人士被指控性騷擾、性侵,甚至外溢到台灣政治圈以外,比如說中國民運人士王丹、貝嶺等人也被指控涉及性騷擾、性侵等情事,而這場性平風暴仍然在持續發酵中。 [...]

More Info
換侯是假議題

換侯是假議題

《美麗島電子報》最新總統大選民調結果顯示,侯友宜在「三角督」中墊底,僅獲18.3%的支持率,回顧2015年國民黨黨主席朱立倫發動撤銷該黨總統候選人洪秀柱的提名時,彼時洪秀柱的民調是16.7%,侯友宜和當年換柱防線僅距1.6%的支持率,故輿論熱議國民黨可能將上演「換柱2.0」,意即撤銷侯友宜提名改派其他有勝望的人選,然筆者認為,換侯只是假議題,理由如下: [...]

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