Su Tseng-chang's "Early Green" Loses to Lee Teng-hui's "Late Green"

Su Tseng-chang's "Early Green" Loses to Lee Teng-hui's "Late Green"
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
June 18, 2010

Su Tseng-chang has yet to take a stand against ECFA. Some Taiwan independence advocates are saying, "If any of the five mayoral candidates fails to express opposition to ECFA, we will not support him."
One of the characteristics of Green Camp politicians is endless flip-flopping regarding their political path. For example, yesterday's "Five Noes" has become today's "one country on each side." Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang's flip-flopping on ECFA is even more flagrant than Lee Teng-hui's. Endless flip-flopping is not merely a characteristic of Green Camp politicians. It is also the main reason the Green Camp political path is unlikely to become the nation's political path.

Compare Lee Teng-hui, Tsai Ing-wen and Su Tseng-chang. Su Tseng-chang has the deepest connections with the Green Camp. He was a Formosa Incident defense attorney. He is considered a first generation Green Camp elder. By contrast, Lee Teng-hui served as Republic of China president under the Nationalists for 12 years. He changed his political colors only after stepping down. Tsai Ing-wen got her start as a staffer in Lee Teng-hui's KMT. Only later did she defect to Ah-Bian's DPP. She was elected chairman of the DPP only four years after her defection. Su Chen-chang's political coloration was Green all the way. Lee Teng-hui and Tsai Ing-wen changed their political colors from Blue to Green. By comparison, their flip-flopping is far more obvious.

Now however, all three must confront ECFA. On today's Green Camp ideological spectrum, Lee Teng-hui and Tsai Ing-wen are paradoxically coming across as "greener" than Su Tseng-chang. Lee and Tsai were "Late Greens." Su was an "Early Green." Yet Lee and Tsai are coming across as greener than Su. The reasons behind this are intriguing.

Lee Teng-hui was the founder of the National Unification Council and the author of the Guidelines for National Unification. He was expelled from the KMT after serving out his term as president. Only then did he join the Green Camp. Even then he urged successor Chen Shui-bian not to dismantle the "two pillars," aka the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines. After Ma Ying-jeou was elected president in 2008, Lee Teng-hui clearly hoped to cozy up to him. But the public response was negative, so Lee beat a hasty retreat. Lee was the standard-bearer for the National Unification Guidelines. Today, he has become the standard bearer for opposition to ECFA. Is such endless flip-flopping motivated by rational considerations, or merely by political opportunism?

Now take Tsai Ing-wen. During the Two Yings Debate, she had yet to express opposition to ECFA. She merely hoped to "delay signing" and demanded "conditions." But once the debate was lost, she had to position herself for re-election as party chairman. She had to respond to "Tsai/Su coopetition." That was when she began to characterize ECFA as a "duet sung by the KMT and CCP" and a "struggle between the rich and the poor." Consider the issue of national identity. That was when she went from referring to herself as the "former Vice Premier of the Republic of China," to referring to the Republic of China as a "government in exile." Such flip-flopping reflects internecine struggles within the Green Camp over both personal power and the nation's political future.

Su Tseng-chang was one of the DPP's founding fathers. Lee and Tsai were not. Su was a pioneer of the DPP's "Taiwan independence party platform." But Su's political path has never been all that clear. Su Tseng-chang's hollow political image is summed up by his equally hollow "charge, charge, charge" political mantra. In fact, the reason Su's political path has never been all that clear, is his major flip-flops. He once refused to back Ah-Bian. But now he has compromised. He once insisted he "would not accept the vice-presidential slot." But eventually he acquiesced to a "Hsieh/Su ticket." Today he is campaigning for Taipei Mayor. He has been forced to take a position on Songshan Airport and ECFA. If Su Tseng-chang were running for Mayor of Greater Kaohsiung, he probably would not hesitate to oppose ECFA. But he is running for Mayor of Taipei. He must use the moderate rhetoric of "Taipei and Beyond."

Compare Lee, Tsai, and Su. The defining character trait of Green Camp politicians is endless flip-flopping. Green Camp politicians flip-flop endlessly on their vision for the nation's future as well. Chen Shui-bian could go from "Five Noes" to "one country each side." Lee Teng-hui could go from proposing "National Unification Guidelines" to asserting that "the Republic of China no longer exists." Su Tseng-chang is running for Taipei Mayor. He feels compelled to adopt a moderate stance on ECFA. The other four DPP candidates however have all have expressed sharp opposition to ECFA. Even on such a major national issue, they are each going by their own playbook. They flip-flop personally. They flip-flop ideologically. The precedents set by Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian provide us with a lesson. In response to threats to their personal power, Green Camp politicians flip-flop endlessly. But their endless flip-flopping paradoxically, generates to new threats to their personal power. Endless flip-flopping and endless threats to their personal power become two sides of a vicious cycle.

This vicious cycle makes it impossible for Green Camp leaders to extricate themselves from power crises. It make it impossible for the Green Camp to rise above endless flip-flopping regarding the nation's future. Should they advocate Taiwan independence? They flip-flop endlessly. They hem and haw. Should they back Ah-Bian? They flip-flop endlessly. They hem and haw. When in power, they say one thing. When out of power, they say something else altogether. They have one political platform for Taipei. They have an entirely different platform for the four other four cities.

While Su was drafting the "Taiwan Independence party platform," Lee was President of the Republic of China. He was holding high the "National Unification Guidelines." Tsai Ing-wen was still a nobody. Today however, Lee and Tsai are perceived as even greener and even more independence-minded than Su. If Su Tseng-chang were running for Mayor of Kaohsiung, would he allow Lee and Tsai to posture as "greener than thou?" As "more independence-minded than thou?"

Green Camp leaders flip-flop endlessly, both personally and ideologically. What possible justification can they offer in their own defense?

蘇貞昌「早綠」不如李登輝「晚綠」
【聯合報╱社論】
2010.06.18 02:34 am

蘇貞昌未表態反對ＥＣＦＡ，獨派有人放話：「五都候選人，不反ＥＣＦＡ就不支持。」

綠營政治人物共同的一大人格特徵就是在政治路線上搖擺變化。例如，昨天還是「四不一沒有」，今天卻變成「一邊一國」。若比較李登輝、蔡英文與蘇貞昌三人對ＥＣＦＡ的態度，亦可見其搖擺變化；其實，搖擺變化非僅是綠營人物的人格特徵，也是綠營路線難以成為國家生存路線的根本原因。

以李登輝、蔡英文與蘇貞昌三人比較，蘇貞昌與綠營的淵源最深，他是美麗島大審律師，可謂是第一代的綠營先驅人物。相對而言，李登輝卻是當了國民黨政府的中華民國總統十二年後，才改持綠旗；而蔡英文則出身國民黨李政府的幕僚，後來才轉入民進黨扁政府，她在當選民進黨主席時黨齡只有四年。由藍變綠的李登輝、蔡英文，較諸一路綠到底的蘇貞昌，其人格之搖擺變化顯而易見。

然而，面對ＥＣＦＡ，如今在綠營意識形態的光譜上，李登輝與蔡英文二人，儼然都比蘇貞昌「綠」。「晚綠」的李蔡二人，卻比「早綠」的蘇貞昌更「綠」，其中道理頗堪玩味。

李登輝是國家統一委員會及國家統一綱領的創制者；甚至在其卸任總統被逐出國民黨、投入綠營後，還告訴接任的陳水扁，不要拆除國統會及國統綱領這「兩大支柱」。及至二○○八馬英九當選總統，李登輝顯有「靠攏」之意；但因馬的民意回應不佳，李遂又抽腿。如今，李由國統綱領的旗手，搖身一變成為反ＥＣＦＡ的轎夫；此種一路走來的搖擺變化，是出自政治理性，或只是投機操作而已？

至於蔡英文，在雙英辯論時尚未「反對」ＥＣＦＡ，僅持「緩簽／配套」立場；及至辯論失敗，再加上布局連任黨主席及因應「蔡蘇競合」，遂將反ＥＣＦＡ拉至「國共唱和／貧富鬥爭」的高度。在國家認同上，亦從「曾任中華民國行政院副院長」，變成將中華民國說成「流亡政府」。這樣的搖擺變化，主要亦是反映了綠營內部的權力及路線鬥爭。

與李蔡相較，蘇貞昌畢竟是民進黨的創黨元勳，也是經歷《台獨黨綱》的先驅人物。但是，蘇的政治路線始終較不凸顯；「衝衝衝」三字訣，成了蘇貞昌空泛的政治品牌。其實，蘇的政治路線之所以不凸顯，原因亦在其高度搖擺變化的人格；他曾抗拒挺扁，卻終告妥協；亦曾堅持「不任副手」，最後接受了「謝蘇配」。然而，如今他參選台北市長，松山機場已迫其表態，ＥＣＦＡ也要他交出答案；倘若蘇貞昌參選的是大高雄市長，他應會毫不猶豫地反ＥＣＦＡ，但他選的卻是台北市長，他就必須考慮「台北超越台北」的溫和說詞。

從李蔡蘇三人的表現來看，綠營人物的人格是搖擺不定的，綠營人物的國家路線也是搖擺不定的。陳水扁可由「四不一沒有」，變成「一邊一國」；李登輝可由倡議「國家統一綱領」，變成「中華民國已經不存在」。蘇貞昌選台北市長，對ＥＣＦＡ持溫和立場，但其他四都卻採尖銳反對立場；連如此重大的國家路線問題，也可各吹各的號。人格是搖擺變化的，路線也是搖擺變化的；從李登輝及陳水扁的前車之鑑可以看出：綠營人物為了因應自己的權力危機而搖擺路線，路線搖擺又形成新的權力危機。往復搖擺，往復變化，遂成惡性循環。

這種惡性循環，是使綠營領導人物不能免除權力危機的原因，亦是使綠營不能免除路線搖擺的原因。台不台獨，擺來擺去，躲來躲去；挺不挺扁，搖來搖去，躲來躲去。執政時是一套，下野時又是另一套；台北市是一套，其他四都又是另一套。

當蘇貞昌經歷《台獨黨綱》之時，李登輝是高舉「國統綱領」的中華民國總統，蔡英文尚名不見經傳；然而，如今李蔡在反ＥＣＦＡ上，卻比蘇貞昌更綠更獨。但若蘇貞昌今天選的是大高雄市長，他會讓李蔡「專綠於前」、「專獨於前」嗎？

綠營的人格搖擺，路線變化，有何道理可言？