The DPP Must Do More Than Offer A Pie in the Sky

The DPP Must Do More Than Offer A Pie in the Sky
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 23, 2011

Yesterday Su Tseng-chang declared his candidacy in the Democratic Progressive Party presidential primary. On Sunday he revealed the first plank in his campaign platform. He joined the anti-nuclear march, and endorsed the decommissioning of Nuclear Plants One, Two, and Three, and a halt to construction on Nuclear Plant Four.

Herein lies one of the fundamental problems with the DPP -- its inconsistency and constant waffling. It opposes nuclear power generation. But during its eight years in power, it first halted, then resumed construction on Nuclear Plant Four. The premier at the time was Su Tseng-chang. The vice premier at the time was Tsai Ing-wen. At the time, Su never gave a second thought to halting construction. Yet now he is calling for the total abolition of nuclear power generation. By the same token, during the DPP's eight years in power, it championed the Five Noes, it upheld the Republic of China, It put on a good show, swearing allegiance up and down. On the other hand, it championed the "rectification of names" and the "referendum to join the UN." It blanked out Chen Shui-bian's reluctant admission that "if it can't be done, it can't be done." Yet now the "one nation on each side connection" has become an influential faction within the party, a tail that wags the dog.

A nuclear-free homeland is of course a desirable goal. But the DPP was in power for eight years. Why did it do nothing to establish a non-nuclear homeland? Nor is Taiwan independence and the founding of a new nation inconceivable. Why did the DPP do nothing during its eight years in power, other than engage in self-deception and deception of others?

All three DPP presidential hopefuls have the temerity to prattle on about "the future." Annette Lu, who withdrew at the moment of truth, boasted of a "grand future for Taiwan and the world." Tsai Ing-wen proclaimed that "I have heard the voice of Taiwan: It calls to the new generation, and urges them to seize the future." Su Tseng-chang meanwhile, spoke of "facing the future, with our feet on the ground." But the DPP was in power for eight years. Did it not promise to seize the future back then? Yesterday's future has become today's past. The DPP's non-nuclear future never came to pass. Its dream of Taiwan independence lies in ruins. The stench of DPP corruption assaults our nostrils. Yet it is now demanding another chance, a chance to lead us toward some sort of "grand future." What sort of bizarre political experiment does it intend to inflict upon us this time around?

This is perhaps the DPP's most important trait. The DPP ignores the past. How did it manage to leave such a mess after eight years in office? The DPP ignores the present, Does it recognize the 1992 Consensus? Does it intend to "continue the previous administration's cross-Strait policy?" The DPP recognizes only "the future." Two thousand years ago, the "Li Yun Datong" made far more spectacular promises than the DPP. We hardly need Su and Tsai to paint us a "grand future" pie in the sky.

Su and Tsai both talk of the future. But is there really any difference between the futures they promise? Each boasts that his or her future is better than the other's. But might not they announce a Tsai/Su ticket or Su/Tsai ticket in the blink of an eye? Might not they call for "unity," in order to divvy up the power and the loot? In fact, if we look at the declarations they made during the party primary, it is hard to see any real difference between the futures they promised. Tsai boasts about ushering in a "new generation," but merely to underscore her relative youth. Su boasts of "transcendence," but merely to underscore his seniority, and how well he has kept up with the times. But if we examine the two candidates' rhetoric more closely, what do we find besides empty talk? How does the two candidates' rhetoric differ from past DPP rhetoric? How does the two candidates' rhetoric differ from each other? The two candidates are afraid to face up to the DPP's past. All they can do is reflexively criticize the status quo, Can they really lead the DPP and the ROC to any sort of future by this alone?

Tsai and Su made ringing proclamations about the future during the party primary. They even did so during their introductions. Tsai addressed young students. Su responded to questions from college girls. Both invoked Yang Shu-chung, sitting on the ground weeping during the Guangzhou Asian Games. Both dodged questions about cross-Strait relations. Tsai Ing-wen failed to utter a single word about Mainland policy. Su Tseng-chang argued against the introduction of "novelty and oddity" in cross-Strait matters." Both candidates denounced the Ma administration's three year term as devoid of merit. But neither drew any honest comparisons with the DPP's eight years in office. The two candidates rhapsodized about a Brave New World. But neither offered any clue as to how they would realize their Utopias.

Su and Tsai both need to answer for their eight years in office. They both need to offer comprehensive strategies for the nation's survival. They cannot merely fantasize about a rosy future. After all, the people have already experienced eight years of the future promised them by the DPP.

Annette Lu has pulled out of the race. She has ended her controversial political career. She had the good fortune to occupy a position in which she could have leveraged her political influence to maximum advantage. Alas, her personality quirks prevented her from fully exploiting her good fortune. She was Vice President of the Republic of China for eight years. As we look back at her years in office, we realize how absurd and terrifying politics can be, and we no longer know whether to laugh or to cry.

民進黨要有比畫大餅更高明的未來論述
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.03.23


蘇貞昌昨天宣布參加民進黨總統初選，周日他預先公布了他的第一個競選政見；他參加了反核遊行，為核一二三除役及停建核四背書。

民進黨的根本問題在此；出爾反爾，顛三倒四。反核，但主政八年，核四停建又復工；在蘇貞昌任行政院長及蔡英文任副院長期間，亦從未有停工之想，現在卻又主張全面廢核。同理，民進黨主政八年，一方面四不一沒有、捍衛中華民國，指天畫地，重誓連連；而另一方面正名制憲、入聯公投，又沒有一樣不是「做不到就是做不到」，但現在「一邊一國」竟又成了黨內舉足輕重的大派系。

非核家園當然令人嚮往，但曾經執政八年，民進黨為非核家園做了什麼事？獨立建國也不是不能想像，但民進黨執政八年又何以只是「自欺欺人」？

巧的是，民進黨三名有意參選總統者，居然異口同聲皆訴諸「未來」。臨陣退選的呂秀蓮標榜「世界台灣大未來」。蔡英文宣示「我聽見台灣的聲音：召喚新世代，把未來扛起來」，蘇貞昌則謂：「腳踏土地，迎向未來。」然而，民進黨在執政八年以前，豈不也是訴諸「未來」？但當時的「未來」，如今已成「過去」，民進黨非核未成，台獨破敗，貪汙腐臭，現在又要第二次將台灣帶向什麼樣的「大未來」？又要第二次給台灣什麼樣的政治實驗？

這或許是民進黨最重要的特徵。不談過去，執政八年怎麼搞成那樣悽慘？也不談現在，承不承認「九二共識」、「是否延續前朝兩岸政策」？卻只是奢言及空談「大未來」。若只談未來，二千年前的《禮運大同篇》比民進黨任何一人皆說得精彩，何勞蘇蔡二人競相為「大未來」畫大餅？

蘇蔡皆談未來，但二人的「未來」到底有何不同？會不會二人現在相互標榜自己的「未來」優於對方，轉眼又宣布「蔡蘇配」或「蘇蔡合」，為權力分贓而「團結」？其實，從蘇蔡二人的初選宣言，國人並看不出二人有何大不同；蔡標榜「新世代」，只是要襯托自己比蘇年輕；蘇強調「超越」，只是要凸顯自己資深又與時俱進。然而，探究二人的論述，除了空泛的詞藻，二人與過去的民進黨有何不同？現在的民進黨又與過去有何不同？二人之間又有什麼不同？二人皆不敢面對民進黨的過去，也皆只會八股地批判現狀，光憑這些就能將民進黨及台灣帶向怎樣的未來？

蔡蘇二人非但皆將初選宣言指向未來，連破題的引言也如出一轍；蔡帶出燈下學童，蘇則舉發問的大學女生。兩人皆提到楊淑君在廣州亞運坐地哭泣，而兩人亦皆對兩岸關係閃避不談；蔡英文無一字論及大陸政策，蘇貞昌則稱兩岸問題「不要標新立異」。兩人皆將馬政府的三年治理說得一無是處，卻未見忠實比較與民進黨八年執政的高下得失。兩人皆說得一口美麗的未來，但怎麼也聽不出來他們憑什麼實現那個烏托邦？

蘇蔡二人應將過去八年執政的結果交代清楚，並對現在的國家生存戰略提出總體的構想；不可只是買空賣空談未來，畢竟國人已經領教過民進黨執政八年那個「已成過去的未來」了！

呂秀蓮退選，為她爭議性的政治生涯添加一筆。她一直幸運地站在政治槓桿的最佳使力點，但她的人格素質與才器實在無法匹配她的幸運。從現今這個場景回顧中華民國曾有這麼一位在位八年的副總統，可知政治的荒謬可至恐怖的地步，令人啼笑皆非。