How things got this bad is a question many DPP members are asking lately. Coming to terms with the answers, however, won't be easy for a party which rose from humble beginnings - it was founded in 1986 by family members and defense lawyers of political prisoners during the KMT's authoritarian rule - and quickly grew from being technically illegal until 1991 to the ruling party in 2000, ending more than half a century of KMT rule.
"There are many reasons for the party's failures, but to me the biggest reasons are lack of internal coherence and failure to deliver on policy promises," Lai said.
Supporters, including those who remember and appreciate the DPP's heyday of fighting for democracy and social welfare, became disillusioned after they re-elected Chen for a second term as president in 2004 and did not see results from his administration, or the DPP, on promises to take back illegally obtained KMT party assets, root out corruption and streamline the government.
Corruption involving DPP party officials, especially alleged embezzlement and insider trading by Chen's family, turned off many supporters. The DPP argues that corruption during KMT rule was much worse, but the people expected better, Lai and others said.
Supporters also lost interest in one of the party's main causes - promoting Taiwan's independence from China, which still claims the island as part of its territory. People preferred the party focus instead on issues that had a direct impact on their lives - especially creating jobs and boosting incomes.
Young voters in particular increasingly supported the rival KMT, seeing it as the party of the future and hope, much like the way they saw the DPP back in 2000 when Chen was elected as Taiwan's first non-KMT president.
The ideas expressed in the article tend to cohere with what I've been hearing -- "the party lost touch with the people" is a common remark. On Sunday I had the good fortune to attend a meeting of future DPP Taichung Mayoral candidate Lin Chia-lung and Taichungers who wanted their views known. The party is willing to listen...but is it willing to learn? Only time will tell.
[Taiwan]
Interesting. As you mention, there is a big difference between listening and doing some real reform. Let's hope the DPP sticks with the later.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDelete.
.
People preferred the party focus instead on issues that had a direct impact on their lives
I laugh at this statement every time I hear it because it is highly inaccurate. Constitutional reform and Issues regarding Taiwan's sovereignty have a tremendous impact on people's lives. What's more, these issues are still being dealt with and will continue to part of the KMT agenda in these next 4 years as well. The difference is not that the DPP wasn't dealing with issues that affect people's lives. The difference is that the KMT were much better at selling their version.
Know Your Audience
Taiwanese society is more willing to embrace the convenience of short-term benefits rather than step back a bit and consider the long-term impact. 'Seeing the big picture' is not a strong attribute for the majority of Taiwanese I'm sad to say. The KMT and China have exploited this vulnerability with much care (yes, China has finally learned to do it). But only with the help of the poor marketing skills of the DPP.
Just look at what the neocons achieved in the U.S. A war criminal was elected a second time and even after the disastrous state that America is in now (much worse than Taiwan I may add), the Republicans are STILL showing strong support in the polls. Why? Because McCain has been repackaged into "a man for change" -- even though he is the complete opposite of that.
Presentation is everything in Taiwan. I suggest that the DPP hire someone that can stay on cue and deliver a powerful message every day of the week.
.
.
.
BTW (completely off-topic ~ sorry), here is a interesting link about food shortages in Japan. Is Taiwan next?
ReplyDeleteStop Ma,
ReplyDeleteI agree that a lot has to do with the DPP learning to market itself better. I think it could learn a bit from studying--and communicating with--the progressive blogosphere in the states, as well as Taiwan-focused blogs like this one.
As for what you say about McCain, I think it is too early read much in the polls showing him doing strongly. As long as the democratic primaries continue, the democratic vote will be divided between the two candidates. Things will change, I believe, once one of the democratic candidates--most likely Clinton at this point--drop out and endorses the other, that is, if she indeed endorses Obama and actively campaigns for him.
A-bian and his contemporaries were still trying to right past wrongs. The most damning event in his administration was a failure to live up to the promise to clean up the Farmer's Association. Not only did that issue cost them an election, it may well be the straw that breaks the DDP's back. I think he feared for his life and didn't have enough courage. The Farmer's Association is a key component to the KMT infrastructure.
ReplyDelete"Because McCain has been repackaged into "a man for change" -- even though he is the complete opposite of that."
ReplyDeleteActually, McCain is far more centrist than Bush will ever be. That is his appeal. He can appeal to voters from most parties. You don't have to agree with his views.
In contrast, Obama HAS BEEN packaging himself as a man of change, but he has one of the most liberal voting records out there. He sounds good, but he is not exactly a departure from the same-old same-old partisan politics.
Obama is better at packaging himself, much like the KMT. If I hear another news report that says "Taiwan's economy will take years to rebuild", I will barf. But the KMT has gotten its message out well, and the DPP has floundered on doing the same.
Thomas,
ReplyDeleteBush presented himself as a Centrist, a Compassionate Conservative, a Moderate Republican, a Uniter Not a Divider back in 2000. He was anything but. McCain is no centrist. He has been the candidate of choice of the Neo-cons for a long time now, and has been a major cheerleader for the Iraq War. The danger is that the media has continued to accept the frame that he is a maverick, even though he has done everything to suck up to the right wing. So you're basically saying the "most liberal voting records" is a bad thing? Who exactly is a departure from the same-old partisan politics?
I did not say I was not partisan. I favour McCain, obviously for some of the reasons you don't. What I was saying is that if anyone is to be singled out as being a poser, it would be Obama. McCain is known to have conservative leanings. He does cross the isle from time to time too (for example, he is far more liberal on environmental issues than most Republicans, although less so than many Democrats). But he is centrist enough for people from across the board to support him. I have met many Democrats who openly prefer him to the other two.
ReplyDeleteObama preaches a message that he does not live up to... kind of like Ma. That was my point. Obama claims to be a great unifier (kind of like Ma) when clearly he is not.
And I reject the point of view that because Bush was bad, McCain would be too. If that is your logic, because CSB was bad (some say), Hsieh would be too. There is some faulty logic there.
.
ReplyDelete.
.
wulingren,
With Karl Rove and corporate media behind McCain, I'm not as optimistic as you are.
thomas,
The only candidate I would have considered to be a major step from the rest would have been Dennis Kucinich. But, of course, he doesn't have the money or any support from the corporate media.
McCain will make Cheney look like the Dali Lhama. So, if you want change that mimics...umm... Armageddon -- then hop on board the "Straight-talk Express". God help us if McCain gets in.
Sorry for being off-topic, Michael.
.
.
.
Stop Ma:
ReplyDeleteI have my doubts as well, but I'm just saying that the Democratic race has yet to be decided, so it is hard to say how the polls will change once it is a definite Democratic nominee against a definite Republican candidate.
Thomas: Actually, I think a Hsieh presidency would have been a continuation of many of Chen's policies, though perhaps by a shrewder president (I don't know). I think Gore would have continued many of Clinton's policies (though without Lewinsky). The second Bush term was an intensification of the first Bush term. I thought the American public would have realized it back in 2004, but a sizeable portion did not. Judging from Bush's disapproval numbers, it would seem that most realize it now (too late). While there was a time when I though McCain was ok, I now believe he would be a continuation of Bush (McSame, as they say), at least on issues such as Iraq and Iran, domestic surveillance and torture, judges, etc. That is at least how he is presenting himself and reflects something about the types of groups he is pandering to and who are funding his campaign.
I really don't place much faith in liberal/conservate ratings of senators. It always depends on the group doing the rating. Obviously, MoveOn rating a Senator as most progressive means something different than the Heritage foundation. People also have different criteria for defining liberal and conservative. Being opposed to the Iraq War is now defined as liberal, and yet Pat Buchanan was against it from the start. Is he a liberal? The "centrist" label doesn't mean much either. Did centrism mean the same thing during Eisenhower's day or Kennedy's day as it means in Bush America? I would say that most Democratic candidates present themselves as centrists, including Obama and Clinton, and it is a funny thing that every time, it seems, the Democratic nominee gets labeled as the "most liberal."
Michael: I'm also sorry for going on this tangent. I guess it is because the Pennsylvania primary finally arrived.