Unable to "manage a majority," Hsieh still wants to be President

Unable to "manage a majority," Hsieh still wants to be President
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
January 24, 2008

During the DPP primaries Yu Shyi-kun advocated "total government." By this he meant that the DPP, having won the presidency, should win a majority in the legislature. Yu's dream may well come true, not for the DPP, but for the KMT. During the Legislative Yuan elections Frank Hsieh boasted that if elected president, he would "manage [to get] a majority." By this he meant he would incite defections from the Blue Camp. Hsieh's boast has been shattered by the KMT's landslide victory.

Both Yu Shyi-kun's advocacy of "total government" and Frank Hsieh's dream of "managing a majority" were responses to eight frustrating years of divided government, in which the executive was controlled by the DPP, while the legislature was controlled by the opposition. This led to the advocacy of "integration of the executive and legislature," to a return to constitutional norms.

But following the DPP's catastrophic loss in the legislative elections, Frank Hsieh's campaign theme suddenly changed. It suddenly became "Because the KMT controls the legislature, therefore the DPP must control the presidency." It suddenly became "defending Taiwan and saving democracy via joint governance." Not only does Hsieh's new theme flatly contradict his "total government" proposal, it openly proclaims "So what if I wasn't able to create a majority? I still ought to be president!"

Overnight, Frank Hsieh went from "If elected president, I will manage a majority" to "So what if I wasn't able to manage a majority? I still ought to be president!" Will Hsieh's proposals, utterly contrary to constitutional norms, win the approval of moderate voters during the 50 days leading up to the presidential election? Not a chance.

Frank Hsieh is clearly caught in a contradiction. He assured the public that if elected, he would be a "passive president," that he would "relinquish executive power," that he would "allow the KMT to form a cabinet." But Hsieh is merely a presidential candidate. Yet here he is, boasting about how he allow the CEO of a major corporation to form a cabinet. What happened to his promise to "allow the KMT to form a cabinet?" If that was not enough, he promised a general amnesty on all National Health Insurance debts, and to reduce the inheritance tax to less than 10%. Is this how a "passive president" behaves?

Frank Hsieh's recent policy proposals prove that he would never be a "passive president." They merely confirm that "divided government," in which the executive and controlling majority in the legislature belong to different parties, is a horrible state of affairs. Suppose Frank Hsieh is elected president, but the cabinet is formed by the KMT. Suppose the president wants to declare a general amnesty on all National Health Insurance debts today, reduce the inheritance tax tomorrow, and implement the "Resolution for a Normal Nation" the day after. Suppose further that he wants to promote the "prompt rectification of names and the authoring of a new constitution." Can you imagine the consequences under divided government?

Hsieh is caught on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, he must promise to be a "passive president." Otherwise voters will be afraid he will make trouble. On the other hand, Hsieh must boast of his ability to "grow the economy." But if the cabinet is presided over by the KMT, how is Hsieh going to be the one who "grows the economy?" Are the president and the cabinet each going to implement their own strategies for growing the economy?

Hsieh proposes "defending Taiwan and saving democracy by means of joint governance." But the public holds the Democratic Progressive Party responsible for destroying Taiwan's values. That's why the public used its ballots to defend Taiwan from the DPP. That's why the public used its ballots to save democracy from the DPP. As for his "joint governance" proposal, that's precisely the nightmare of "divided government" the public has endured for the past eight years. Does Frank Hsieh really believe the voters won't realize how horrible divided government is during the next 50 days?

Besides, campaign planks such as "defending Taiwan and saving democracy via joint governance" have already exposed the self-destructive appeal at the core of Frank Hsieh's presidential campaign. By highlighting such appeals, the Hsieh camp is announcing that it intends to offer up the same same discredited old "I am Taiwanese. Those who oppose me are not Taiwanese. I am democratic. Those who oppose me are not democratic" pitch. Hsieh and Su have been mouthing arguments that "The KMT will sell out Taiwan because Ma Ying-jeou advocates eventual reunification." These arguments proved to be ineffective during the legislative elections. Is this Frank Hsieh's notion of "not encouraging populist mob sentiment," of "not inciting ethnic strife [i.e., social conflict]?" Is this Frank Hsieh's notion of "drawing a line between himself and Chen Shui-bian?"

Hsieh's original plan, if elected, was to "manage a [DPP] majority" in the legislature. No wonder voters are suspicious. If Hsieh already knows he cannot "make a majority," why is he claiming he will simultaneously be a "passive president" and "a president who acts as a check on the legislature?" Why is he asking voters to use their ballots to create yet another divided government? Why is he asking voters to use their ballots to commit political suicide?

Frank Hsieh faces a tough election. If he adopts "divided government" as his campaign theme, he is going to have a difficult time winning over voters. His campaign will inevitably be reduced to fanning mob sentiment and inciting social conflict. The Hsieh/Su campaign will find itself caught in a self-destructive downward spiral. Not only will Hsieh lose the election, he will lose any chance of becoming the Democratic Progressive Party's standard-bearer following the election. That's because fanning mob sentiment and inciting social conflict is Chen Shui-bian's strong suit.

If Frank Hsieh loses the election having run a righteous campaign, the consequences for him will be more salutary than if he loses the election having run a dirty campaign. If he loses the election having run a righteous campaign, he can reinvent himself as a "New Frank Hsieh." But if he loses the election having run a dirty campaign, he will merely wind up as a Chen Shui-bian clone.

分裂政府：不能「喬過半」，仍要當總統？
【聯合報╱社論】
2008.01.24 04:03 am

游錫?在初選時所主張的「完全執政」，可能由國民黨實現；謝長廷在立委選舉前所倡言的「喬過半」，則因國民黨大勝而完全破滅。

不論是游錫?的「完全執政」，或是謝長廷的「喬過半」，皆是深感八年來「朝小野大」、「分裂政府」的痛苦，因而主張必須實現「府院合體」，回歸憲政生理。

但是，民進黨立委選舉大敗後，謝長廷的競選訴求，卻突然變成「國民黨已贏得立法院，所以應由民進黨任總統」，而有「護台灣，救民主，兩黨共治」的主張；此一論調，非但已違反「完全執政」的主張，且竟是擺明了說：「即使已不能喬過半，總統也應由我謝長廷來當！」

謝長廷從「當選總統後，要喬過半」，轉變到「不能喬過半，仍要當總統」；這種完全違反憲政生理的主張，未來經過大選投票前五十餘日的激盪沉澱，能否獲得中間選民的認同，實在不無疑問。

謝長廷顯已陷於自相矛盾之中。他說，他若當選，會當一個「消極總統」，又稱他會「釋出行政權」，並謂將由國民黨組閣。但是，謝長廷如今尚只是一個總統參選人而已，他竟已主張由ＣＥＯ組閣，這是尊重國民黨的組閣權嗎？又主張健保大赦及遺產稅調降至十％以下，這難道是「消極總統」的作為嗎？

謝長廷近日所提的政見主張，證明他不可能當一個「消極總統」，亦證明了總統與國會分屬兩黨的「分裂政府」的可怕。倘若謝長廷當選總統，內閣由國民黨組成，但總統卻今天要大赦健保，明天要調降遺產稅，後天又要實踐《正常國家決議文》，而主張「及早正名制憲」，那種四分五裂的「分裂政府」怎堪想像？

謝長廷進退維谷。一方面，他必須聲明將是「消極總統」，否則選民會怕他亂搞；但另一方面，謝長廷又必須揚言他也能「拚經濟」，唯內閣既由國民黨主持，謝長廷憑什麼「拚經濟」？難道總統與內閣要分別拚兩套經濟？

謝長廷主張「護台灣，救民主，兩黨共治」。但是，現今的主流民意卻認為：正因台灣價值已被民進黨所毀，所以選民用選票護住了台灣；而選民用選票護住了台灣，也就救回了民主。至於「兩黨共治」的主張，其實正是「分裂政府」的噩夢。試問：謝長廷難道認為多數選民在未來五十幾天的日子裡，還想不透「分裂政府」的恐怖？

何況，「護台灣，救民主，兩黨共治」這樣的訴求，對謝長廷的大選論述，已經暴露了「內建」的自我毀滅危機。因為，謝營既要凸顯這一套訴求，必又回到「我是台灣，反我者非台灣／我是民主，反我者非民主」的老路；近日謝蘇二人口中，又大量出現「國民黨賣台／馬英九終極統一」的論調，但這套說法其實在立委選舉中已證實為無效。難道這是「不鼓動民粹／不挑動族群」嗎？難道這是與陳水扁切割嗎？

謝長廷原本主張，他若當選，要將國會「喬過半」，曾使選民頗覺疑懼；如今，既已明知全無「喬過半」的可能，卻仍宣稱要當一個既「消極」又「制衡」的總統，這更不啻是要選民自己用選票來製造「分裂政府」，即用選票來進行政治自殺了！

在如此艱困的選情中，謝長廷若以主張「分裂政府」為論述主軸，恐怕在理智上不易說服選民，且亦必會使其競選的手法迅速趨向「鼓動民粹／挑動族群」發展，進而使謝蘇選局陷於自我毀滅的向下螺旋之中。那就不但可能使謝長廷輸掉大選，且亦可能一併失去了他在選後成為民進黨新旗手的可能性。因為，若要「鼓動民粹／挑動族群」，陳水扁才是個中翹楚。

畢竟，對於謝長廷來說，用正確的論述，卻輸掉選舉；與用錯誤的論述，又輸掉選舉，是不同的。前者，即使輸掉了選舉，但可望塑造一個新的「謝長廷」；後者，輸掉了選舉，只是多了一個「扁二世」。