A Watershed Decision: Forward or Reverse?

A Watershed Decision: Forward or Reverse?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 17, 2008

This was the last weekend before election day. In a contest of popularity and momentum, the entire island was abuzz with the sights and sounds of political mobilization. One side issued a call for "A Million High Fives, a Reversal of Fortune." The other side declared "Taiwan must Move Forward," hoping to counter a potential reversal of fortune for the DPP by moving the KMT forward. Four KMT legislators miscalculated. They paid an abortive visit to Frank Hsieh's election headquarters, giving Green Camp morale a significant boost. But the controversy also heightened a sense of crisis in the Blue Camp. The public was thought to be cooler to this election than any in recent memory. But in its final stages, voter sentiment has heated up. Less than a week remains. Republic of China voters will have to choose between moving forward or going back. Everything hinges on who will be able to move ROC voters this week.

To tell the truth, this is a very ugly election. Green Card allegations and other forms of muckraking dominated the first half. A controversy over a Cross-Strait Common Market dominates the second half. On the surface it is a debate over public policy. In fact it is a battle over reunfication vs. independence, in the guise of a debate over a "One-China Market." Frank Hsieh pays lip service to "reconciliation and coexistence." But the very manner in which he wages his campaign reveals he has no intention of reconciling, and has no desire to coexist. Ma Ying-jeou wants to talk about policy, about assuming responsibility. But he can't even assume responsibility for blunders committed by four legislators within his own camp. In other words, most of the time, this is an election that has totally lost its focus. In the end, the rival platforms have been reduced to "moving forward" or a "reversal of fortune." The election long ceased to be about the future of the country, and became about feelgood slogans.

Fine. Let's talk about feelings. Why should we choose the Green Camp's "Reversal of Fortune?" Why should we believe that the Blue Camp will necessarily be able to "move [Taiwan] forward?" We hate to say it, but such feelings cannot be based on hearsay evidence about green cards, or scare tactics about a "One China Market." Still less can they be about four KMT legislators who blundered by dropping in on Hsieh's campaign headquarters. What will happen to Taiwan if the Green Camp enjoys a "reversal of fortune?" What will happen to Taiwan if the Blue Camp succeeds in "moving forward?"

The theme of yesterday's Green Camp march was a "Reversal of [the DPP's] Fortune." No mention was made of reconciliation and coexistence. Instead, the Green camp reverted to form, harping on reunification vs. independence. Its only answer to the issue of economics was to "Say No to a One China Market" and to reiterate its "UN for Taiwan" [sic] demand, as an expression of its "Opposition to Chinese Hegemony." This was an appeal to hardcore Deep Green supporters. If Hsieh hopes win the presidency by relying on support from this segment of the political spectrum, it is hard to imagine him opening up cross-Straits exchanges. Remember the political momentum behind Chen Shui-bian in 2000? Even he was taken hostage by the Deep Greens. If Frank Hsieh wins the presidency by relying on this segment, he will be retracing Chen Shui-bian's footsteps.

Even more bizarre is Hsieh's interpretation of "checks and balances" and "one-party dominance." These, along with his "Save Taiwan, Save Democracy," appeal, form a bizarre jigsaw puzzle. Has any political party hoping to to assume power ever wanted "checks and balances?" Yes, the KMT is dominant within the Legislative Yuan. But its dominance is not the dominance it enjoyed under martial law, when new elections were postponed indefinitely. Its dominance is the direct result of ROC voters casting their ballots and making their choices. The question the DPP should be asking itself is why ROC voters have punished it by reducing it to the minor party it is today. What right does it have to disrespect the voters' decision? What right does it have to spin its contempt for the people's decision as some sort of noble effort to "Save Democracy?"

Suppose the DPP is allowed to enjoy a "Reversal of Fortune," just so Frank Hsieh can "check and balance" so-called "one-party dominance." How will the result differ from what we have now? When the KMT had even less control over the legislature, we endured an eight year long running battle between a Chen presidency and an opposition legislature. Would a Hsieh presidency, conducting another running battle with an ostensibly more dominant KMT, really result in "checks and balances?" If the DPP is allowed to enjoy a "Reversal of Fortune," then our eight year ordeal will be extended for at least another four years. Are ROC voters really that stupid? The Hsieh camp knows how to wage an election campaign. But will a shrewd campaign really capture the hearts and minds of ROC voters?

The Blue camp's "Taiwan must move Forward" campaign is reeling from the Green camp's "One China Market" spin control. The four KMT legislators who visited Hsieh campaign headquarters also lent a superficial plausibility to allegations of "one-party dominance." As Ma Ying-jeou marches forward, he must remain vigilant.

The Green Camp's demonization of a "One China Market" consists of nothing but malicious distortions. But why are so many people so quick to believe it? The four KMT legislators' visit to Hsieh headquarters was hardly a crime. So why has it had such an impact? Why did Ma Ying-jeou feel compelled to apologize at least seven times? One must never underestimate ROC voters' concerns. Any emotions that can be manipulated must never be underestimated.

Less than a week remains. The last round of political debates have ended. Polls may no longer be published. Over the past few days the Blue and Green camps have been attempting to win the hearts of voters. Do the voters wish to go forward or go back? The hearts of the voters already contain the answer.

關鍵抉擇：要逆轉勝？還是向前行？
中國時報
2008.03.17　

　比人氣，也比氣勢，投票前最後一個假日，全島都彌漫在街頭動員的喧囂裡。一邊要「百萬擊掌逆轉勝」，一邊則要「台灣向前行」，希望以「前進對抗逆轉」。靠著四個笨蛋踢館事件的發酵，讓綠營低迷的士氣顯著回升，也讓藍營的危機意識更形升高，這場原本被評為歷來「最冷的選舉」，終於在這最後階段熱起來了。在剩下不到一周的日子裡，台灣選民是要選擇前行還是逆轉，就看誰能夠在這一周真正觸動台灣人的心靈了。

　講實在話，這確是一場很難看的選舉！綠卡與抓耙子等負面指控主導了前半場，後半場邁入兩岸共同市場的爭論，看似公共政策論辯，卻是藉著「一中市場」包裝著另類統獨大戰。選戰風格上，謝長廷嘴裡念著「和解共生」經，整個選戰操作模式恰恰反應他既無意和解，也不想共生；馬英九要談政策，要承擔責任，卻管不住自己陣營裡四個笨蛋做蠢事。換言之，在大多數的時間裡，這是場完全失焦的選舉。弄到最後，雙方已經將訴求簡化成是要「向前行」還是「逆轉勝」了，這早已不是在選擇哪一種治國藍圖好，而是在選擇哪一種「感覺」對了！

　好吧，就只談感覺吧！我們憑什麼要選擇讓綠營「逆轉勝」？我們又憑什麼相信藍營一定能引領台灣「向前行」？很抱歉，這種感覺不是捕風捉影的綠卡，不是嚇唬人的一中市場，更不是四個笨蛋踢館所能左右的。台灣如果讓綠營逆轉勝會怎樣？能怎樣？台灣如果讓藍營引領著「向前行」又會是怎樣？

　綠營昨日遊行所主打的「逆轉勝」，不再提什麼和解共生，而是重回「統獨」主旋律了，所訴求的「顧飯碗」，對應的是「反一中市場」；「要入聯」則對應著「反中國霸權」。這個訴求所企圖催化的還是深綠基本盤的熱情，如果謝長廷真的寄希望藉這個板塊的有效凝聚，一路送他進總統府，很難想像未來他還有可能在開放兩岸上做到大開大闔。試想以陳水扁當年的聲勢，都在深綠板塊的綁架下動彈不得，謝長廷如果再度藉著這個板塊當選，不正是逆轉回扁的路線嗎？

　更奇怪是他所召喚的「要制衡」，以及所對應的「反一黨獨大」訴求，再配合「救台灣、救民主」的總訴求，拼湊出一組非常奇特的拼圖。試問：有哪個想要執政的政黨，心中最懸念的竟是「要制衡」？沒錯，國民黨在立法院的席次是「獨大」，但這回這個「獨大」，可不是當年戒嚴體制下不改選的「獨大」，而是台灣選民用選票選出來的「獨大」，你民進黨該追問的是為什麼被選民懲罰成今日的小黨，有什麼資格去反對選民用一張張票所做出抉擇？甚至還大言不慚的宣稱這種反對是在「救民主」？

　試想，如果讓民進黨「逆轉勝」，只是要讓謝長廷去「制衡」，去「反一黨獨大」，那又跟現狀有什麼兩樣？陳水扁在國民黨不怎麼獨大的情形下，都讓朝野烽火連天了八年，未來面對一個更「獨大」的國民黨，謝長廷會制衡出一個不一樣局面嗎？如果「逆轉勝」的結局，只是讓過去八年的經驗起碼再延續四年，那麼台灣的選民為什麼要當「笨蛋」呢？謝陣營確實會打選戰，但漂亮的選戰背後，他們真的捕捉到了台灣的人心嗎？

　至於藍營的「台灣向前行」，一方面在綠營強打「一中市場」下走得跌跌撞撞，另一方面「四個笨蛋」效應也確實催化了對「一黨獨大」的疑慮。馬英九在一路「向前行」之際，真的有必要警覺，就算綠營對「一中市場」的恫嚇策略，真是在惡意扭曲，為什麼還是有那麼多人寧願選擇相信？四個黨籍立委的「笨蛋行徑」，並不是滔天大罪，為什麼能釀成那麼的大效應，讓馬英九還要親上火線起碼道七次歉？這意味永遠不要低估台灣人民任何潛在的疑慮，只要是能被動員出來的任何感覺，都是不能輕忽的。

　不到一周了，最後一場的政見辯論都收場了，民調也不准再公布了，這幾天藍綠所拚戰的，真的就只是捕捉選民當下最真實的感覺了，是要向前行，還是逆轉勝，選民心中或許已經有了答案。