Outsiders Have Never Won: A Phony Proposition

Outsiders Have Never Won: A Phony Proposition
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 5, 2010

Following the KMT's defeat at the polls, some strange arguments have emerged from within the party. Blue camp legislators from Taipei County have argued that "Outsiders never win." They have used this as a pretext to poormouth Chu Li-lun's bid for Xinbei City mayor. In fact, this is a phony proposition. By the same token, the Kuomintang leadership has been taken hostage by local factions, yet boasts that it "remains committed to reforms." The Blue camp has repeatedly tripped over this huge stumbling block.
Blue camp legislator Luo Lie is a five time KMT candidate for Taipei County Executive. He said outsiders never win. He said Blue camp outsiders Li Hsi-kuen, Tsai Sheng-bang, Hsieh Sheng-shan, Wang Chien-hsuan and others all lost to Yu Ching and Su Tseng-chang. Only when the Blue camp nominated native son Chou Hsi-wei did it prevail over Luo Wen-chia. The biggest fallacy in this argument is its mischaracterization of Blue camp candidates as outsiders. It forgets completely that Yu Ching and Su Tseng-chang were themselves outsiders. If local leaders propagate such an ignorant argument merely because they are tired of losing that is one thing. But if they are doing it merely to undermine a fellow party member's election bid, that is simply pathetic.

The problem is phony propositions such as this do in fact influence the political situation. We all pretend to carry on serious political discussions. But many people are unaware of the facts, and accept such myths at face value. The Blue camp is rife with defeatism. It is also rife with selfishness. It lacks fighting spirit. Such specious arguments, phony issues, and false conclusions, are the KMT's biggest enemy.

Take the recent by-election for example. The Blue camp's defeat was due in part to ineffectual central government rule. The defeat should not be attributed to the candidates' "outsider" status. It should be attributed to the candidates' poor qualifications. Add to this sabotage by local leaders. Outsider Chen Hsueh-sheng entered the race for Taoyuan. If local leaders had made a concerted effort, how could Chen have lost by a mere 2000 votes? Lin Te-jui, after losing in Chiayi, lamented that she had only 47 days of political experience, how could she prevail over Chen Ming-wen, who had over 33 years years of experience? Lin Te-jui was indeed defeated because she lacked the qualifications and the experience, Ma Ying-jeou even got her name wrong while stumping for her. Suppose she had been a local? How could a political novice like her triumph against such odds? By contrast, Hsiao Bi-khim may have been an outsider in the Hualien race. But she had a high degree of name recognition. She had an outstanding political record. She, by contrast, posed a major threat to her opponent.

From this we can see that being an outsider is not the decisive factor in victory or defeat. The key is whether the candidates have won the hearts and minds of the local electorate. Take Jason Hu for example. He had no experience in local politics. Yet he reconquered Taichung City for the Blue camp in one fell swoop. This is an example of what an outsider can accomplish. Chen Shui-bian could be elected mayor of Taipei City. Frank Hsieh could be elected mayor of Kaohsiung. They too were outsiders. Their individual qualifications, together with the right political climate, broke down geographical barriers, and enable them to emerge victorious.

During an era of one-party government, the KMT and local factions established a peculiar symbiotic relationship. Several decades of political evolution have forced the two to reexamine their relationship. It is now time to clean house. Local political forces have taken shape. Local human and economic factors have changed. Each of them has its own peculiar nature. They cannot be lumped together and view negatively. Democracy has evolved, and society has liberalized. Monopoly interests, political alliances, and illegal favoritism must be changed or brought to an end. This is an irresistible trend. The Democratic Progressive Party continues to recruit deserters and collaborate with local bosses. But the trend should be clear even to them.

This does not mean the KMT must sever all relations with local factions. It can use both the carrot and the stick to pressure local factions. It can encourage them to respect democracy and the rule of law, and play by the rules of the game. Self-important troublemakers should be immediately be given a sharp rap on the head. They must not be treated the way the Cheng Yung-chin clan in Hsinchu County has been treated -- alternately punished and rewarded. Without firm principles, the party will lose both party discipline and the people's hearts. Based on the past several elections, a two-party political system is clearly taking form. Candidates who are neither True Blue nor True Green will be unelectable. This should be a clear warning to deluded local politicians who would blackmail the central party leadership. Members of modern political parties must abide by the norms of modern politics. Only then can political parties answer to society.

Consider the recent county council chief and city council chief elections. The Blue camp lost only four seats. But some county or city council chiefs may be using the county or city council merely to line their pockets or aggrandize themselves. If the Blue camp loses county or city council seats, it will be weakened. For the KMT this may be a good thing. This may enable other outside forces to check and balance local factions. The central party leadership may encounter less resistance in its effort to clean up local politics. From a broader perspective, this could be a blessing in disguise,

The KMT loudly promises reform. But in practice it makes all sorts of compromises. It takes two steps forward and one step back. This encourages local factions to stonewall and to blackmail the central party leadership. Is is really true that outsiders never win? Suppose outsider Su Tseng-chang wins in Taipei City? Suppose Chu Li-lun wins in Xinbei City? Will that be chalked up as "outsiders always win?"

「空降的從來沒贏過」是個偽命題
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.03.05 02:24 am

敗選後，國民黨內部傳出了一些奇怪的論調。藍軍北縣立委以「空降人選從來沒贏過」為由，唱衰朱立倫參選新北市，其實就是個不折不扣的假命題。這和國民黨中央屢遭地方派系挾持，卻誇口要「堅持改革」一樣，都說明了藍軍為何一再摔在派系這塊大絆腳石上。

藍軍立委羅列近五次台北縣長選舉名單，指藍營提名的李錫錕、蔡勝邦、謝深山、王建?等人，接連敗給尤清和蘇貞昌，直到當地出身的周錫瑋才贏了綠營的羅文嘉，足證「空降的」都不會贏。這個說法最大的謬誤，是把藍軍的敗北全部簡化為人選「空降」，卻忘了尤清和蘇貞昌一樣是飛象過河的外地人。如此昧於事實的論調，若只是因為地方人士「輸怕了」，倒還可以理解；但若只是藉題發揮扯同志的後腿，那就太可悲了。

問題是，這麼一個錯謬的敘述，居然也能在政壇大肆發酵，大家煞有介事地討論，許多不明就裡者還信以為真。可見，藍營內部目前除「失敗論」氣氛瀰漫，還充斥本位主義的自私心理，更缺乏一股「贏的意志」。這類似是而非的論調，錯認問題，找錯答案，才是國民黨最大的敵人。

以這次補選為例，藍軍的挫敗除了中央施政績效不彰外，就操作面而言，與其歸咎於空降，不如說是人選實力太弱，再加上派系掣肘之故。陳學聖空降桃園，若是地方能齊心，怎會以兩千多票落選？嘉義的林德瑞敗選後，感嘆自己僅四十七天的「從政資歷」，如何打得過經營卅三年的陳明文？林德瑞確實敗在資歷及經營不足，連馬英九輔選都叫錯他名字，就算是當地出身，但一個政治生手如何險中求勝？相對的，蕭美琴在花蓮也是空降，但她的知名度高、問政資歷出色，相形之下，就對對手構成了重大威脅。

由此可見，候選人是否空降，並非影響勝敗的決定性因素，關鍵在提名人選是否抓得住地方人心。以胡志強為例，過去也從未有地方政治的經驗，當年卻能一舉為藍軍奪回台中市，這不是奇兵空降之功嗎？包括陳水扁當選台北市長、謝長廷直取高雄，也都是跨區空降，在個人條件突出與特定政治氣氛配合下，突破了地域藩籬，創造了時勢。

在一黨獨大的年代，國民黨與地方派系建立了奇特的「共生」關係，歷經數十年的生態變化，雙方也到了必須重新調整、清理的時候了。事實上，地方政治勢力的形成，因各地人文及經濟條件的不同，各有其特殊性，誠然不可一概以負面眼光視之。但是，隨著民主的演進和社會的開放，許多利益壟斷、結幫營派、違法徇私的傳統操作必須改變或終止，這恐怕是時代所趨，不得不然。對於因不斷招降納叛與地方勢力勾結的民進黨而言，此一同樣的道理也是再清楚不過的。

對國民黨而言，這並不表示非要以決絕手段斬斷派系，而可用恩威並濟的手段，對派系施加壓力，促使他們尊重民主與法治的遊戲規則。對於妄自尊大的騷亂紀律者，則應立即給予當頭棒喝，而不應像對待新竹縣鄭永金家族那樣罰賞反覆、毫無原則，弄到黨紀與民心雙輸。事實上，從近幾次選舉看，兩黨政治的形勢已然相當明顯，非屬正藍或正綠的候選人幾無發展空間。這對於妄想挾個人勢力威脅黨中央的地方政治人物，不啻是一項清楚的警告：作為現代政黨的一員，就得接受現代政治的規範，如此政黨才能對社會負責。

以這次縣市議長改選為例，藍軍掌控的議會雖減少四席，但縣市議長若只是利用議會來圖利或壯大自己，那麼藍軍議長席次掉落、羽翼變弱，對國民黨未嘗不是一件好事。因為如此一來，地方派系有了其他不同勢力的制衡，黨中央改革地方生態的阻力也可能變小。從大處看，這是塞翁失馬，焉知非福。

國民黨口口聲聲改革，但實際行動卻往往是充滿妥協、進退失據，導致地方派系心存儌倖，藉機向中央勒索。空降的都不會贏嗎？年底蘇貞昌若「空降」台北市，朱立倫若「空降」新北市，難道會只因「空降」與否見勝負？