Tsai Ing-Wen is about as moderate a DPP politician as there is. That would normally be a good thing in most Taiwanese elections, but not this time around. Not 2016.
Because, this time around, the DPP - for the first time in history - is virtually guaranteed to win the presidency. Never before has the DPP possessed such a staggering advantage in a presidential race. The DPP could run a diehard, deep-green, fiercely-pro-independence candidate against the likes of Hung and Soong, and still win.
What does this mean? This means that the DPP should have run the most pro-independence candidate possible, rather than a moderate like Tsai. Such an opportunity comes perhaps only once a generation. Never before has there been a golden opportunity to be proudly, defiantly, openly pro-independence than in this upcoming election. In the past, the DPP had to tone down its rhetoric in order to not alienate the moderate voters, but this time Hung Hsiu-Chu and the KMT are in such disastrous shape that the Greens don’t have to worry about toning down their rhetoric.
Oh well - perhaps Tsai, if nothing else, will at least select a very pro-independence running mate. And the DPP does need to win an LY majority, which might still make Tsai the sensible choice.
I think this is a shortsighted view. By putting a moderate into place they set the party up to become the favorite (possibly big favorite) for the next several elections. If they put in a diehard that would make it easier for the KMT to bring back the light blue voters in the future.
Gee, what a brilliant idea. Run a fiercely pro-TI candidate, he/she wins, declares independence, China puts a military blockade around Taiwan, we appeal to the USA for intervention and they tell us to go to Hell, we surrender a month later and get absorbed by the PRC.
Tsai’s words sound moderate and intentionally vague. We don’t know what her actual policies will be, if she gets elected. People say many things in the run up to an election.
[quote=“PeregrineFalcon”]Tsai Ing-Wen is about as moderate a DPP politician as there is. That would normally be a good thing in most Taiwanese elections, but not this time around. Not 2016.
Because, this time around, the DPP - for the first time in history - is virtually guaranteed to win the presidency. Never before has the DPP possessed such a staggering advantage in a presidential race. The DPP could run a diehard, deep-green, fiercely-pro-independence candidate against the likes of Hung and Soong, and still win.
What does this mean? This means that the DPP should have run the most pro-independence candidate possible, rather than a moderate like Tsai. Such an opportunity comes perhaps only once a generation. Never before has there been a golden opportunity to be proudly, defiantly, openly pro-independence than in this upcoming election. In the past, the DPP had to tone down its rhetoric in order to not alienate the moderate voters, but this time Hung Hsiu-Chu and the KMT are in such disastrous shape that the Greens don’t have to worry about toning down their rhetoric.
Oh well - perhaps Tsai, if nothing else, will at least select a very pro-independence running mate. And the DPP does need to win an LY majority, which might still make Tsai the sensible choice.[/quote]
Isn’t it possible that the depth of the likely DPP electoral favoritism is based largely on Tsai’s moderate tone? If a Deep Green was running, someone stronger (and more moderate) than Hung may have decided to run on the KMT ticket like a Chu or Wang. In addition, the U.S. may not have given such a Deep Green candidate as warm a reception as Tsai got this time (they might have treated the Deep Green like Tsai in 2012 and had an orchestrated “anonymous” leak to damage the candidate’s prospects).
I disagree with the OP. A politician may be moderate, but at lot depends on his/her appointments, his/her senior bureaucrats etc. as they will shape policy before it is presented to the President etc. Just because Tsai is moderate doesn’t mean the administration will necessarily be. Or it may very well be (if she’s hands on, keeps her appointments on a tight leash, micromanages/centralizes/is a control freak etc.). But that comes down more to personal leadership characteristics than ideology.
A moderate leader with weak leadership skills could actually be manipulated by very ideological people. I don’t think this applies to Tsai by the way.
That’s what I was going to say. OP, do realize that just as “liberal” and “conservative” can be dirty words in certain part of the US, dropping the name of the “DPP” causes a lot of conservative Taiwanese people to mutter hushed curses, and bringing up the topic of “Taiwanese Independence” can launch a screaming match – before you’ve even said whether or not you support it.
There is a hard contingent of deep green people. I would estimate that they are about 1/3 of voters. That’s not enough for the DPP to win. They need to reach across the aisle and appeal to a brand new demographic of voters: people who are disenchanted with the KMT. A lot of people don’t know it but they’re swing voters.
Tsai is low-key, and considering who she’s up against, that’s very beneficial. She is probably the best candidate the DPP could have run, and that’s why they did.
[quote=“ChewDawg”]I disagree with the OP. A politician may be moderate, but at lot depends on his/her appointments, his/her senior bureaucrats etc. as they will shape policy before it is presented to the President etc. Just because Tsai is moderate doesn’t mean the administration will necessarily be. Or it may very well be (if she’s hands on, keeps her appointments on a tight leash, micromanages/centralizes/is a control freak etc.). But that comes down more to personal leadership characteristics than ideology.
A moderate leader with weak leadership skills could actually be manipulated by very ideological people. I don’t think this applies to Tsai by the way.[/quote]
If she wants to stay in power she will have to keep the radicals under control.
What indicates to you that Tsai will ruffle Beijing’s feathers? Beijing has shown time and time again it can be capricious. Tsai for her part has played into most of Beijing’s unspoken rules – she has expressly and repeatedly said she will enforce the status quo and she has repeatedly endorsed the ROC. The only two things Beijing can get uppity about are the fact that her party has not removed its Taiwan Independence Clause from the party charter, and she will not accept the 1992 Consensus. If China were a rational actor, these would be issues to discuss, not feather-ruffling offenses. But China is not rational. It has a heart made of glass or perhaps tofu that is easily damaged and needs coddling.
The signs that China has upped its pressure on Taiwan in international space are abound. Look at the recent incident at the UN headquarters in Genova. And at a recent international event in Korea, the prominently displayed ROC flag suddenly and mysteriously disappeared and was replaced with the Chinese Taipei sports flag. This is with a president who Beijing at least until very recently has viewed quite favorably. If you don’t want to ruffle Beijing’s feathers, you would have to just accept all of this without complaint.
Saying that Taiwan’s leader’s priority should be avoiding causing offense to Beijing is like saying you shouldn’t talk back to the bully at school, even when he’s looking to instigate.
Contrary to Chinese propaganda and what the Chinese Nationalists claim, China will not invade even if the next president of ROC declares Taiwan’s independence.
In fact, China will continue to claim that Taiwan is a part of China, just like it has been doing despite LTH and CBS has repeatedly said Taiwan is an independent country. It’s already been done many times.
So the hypothetical scenario of the next DPP president declaring independence is really a part of a rhetorical game again. The next president WILL say it is. And Pro-Chian folks will continue to pretend it’s not a “declaration.”
Why don’t we all just be honest and say we don’t know exactly what China would do? We make educated guesses based on the information we have and our personal intuition. The question isn’t about what China is or isn’t going to do. It’s about whether or not it’s right and worth doing even if China doesn’t like it.
Thank you. Sometimes I wonder if democracy at the end of a gun-barrel is real democracy. If Taiwan continues to vote for candidates and parties it doesn’t actually want, it should change its name to 口是心非共和國.
Tsai could switch Ma’s rhetoric around and say that shed’ do whatever’s necessary to defend Taiwan’s sovereignty and maintain the “dignity” of roc.
Talks like these are typically given in graduation ceremonies.
The great irony is that anti-Taiwan folks won’t even want to advertise it for her, because if they even create a conversation about it, it’d imply that a President’s speech itself would make Taiwan not a part of China. Which they think is not possible. But then, they would still dare Tsai to declare independence.
What indicates to you that Tsai will ruffle Beijing’s feathers? Beijing has shown time and time again it can be capricious. Tsai for her part has played into most of Beijing’s unspoken rules – she has expressly and repeatedly said she will enforce the status quo and she has repeatedly endorsed the ROC. The only two things Beijing can get uppity about are the fact that her party has not removed its Taiwan Independence Clause from the party charter, and she will not accept the 1992 Consensus. If China were a rational actor, these would be issues to discuss, not feather-ruffling offenses. But China is not rational. It has a heart made of glass or perhaps tofu that is easily damaged and needs coddling.
The signs that China has upped its pressure on Taiwan in international space are abound. Look at the recent incident at the UN headquarters in Genova. And at a recent international event in Korea, the prominently displayed ROC flag suddenly and mysteriously disappeared and was replaced with the Chinese Taipei sports flag. This is with a president who Beijing at least until very recently has viewed quite favorably. If you don’t want to ruffle Beijing’s feathers, you would have to just accept all of this without complaint.
Saying that Taiwan’s leader’s priority should be avoiding causing offense to Beijing is like saying you shouldn’t talk back to the bully at school, even when he’s looking to instigate.[/quote]
I mean Tsai has done a good job of assuring the public that she wont do that. Was responding to the OP’s suggestion.
China is in a strange place right now. Xi’s hardman mask is slipping and dissent is growing. It would not be a good time to elect a troublemaker. Think most Taiwanese would want to elect a leader who knows at least for the time being, knows which way the wind is blowing.
What Tsai could do is repeating a Policy, for example, that the “consensus of 1996 direct presidential election” was already a legal declaration of independence, and she could repeat it again and again. Pro-China folks would now have two choices:
shut up and not challenge her, thereby acquiesce.
challenge her on the existence of the 1996 consensus.
Then Tsai could say that you could agree to disagree to the meaning of the 1996 consensus, but we can’t really deny that it did happen, can we.
How about “Taiwan has been independent since ancient times”?
Or better yet, “Chinese Reunification and Taiwan Independence are really the same thing.” But, you know, with different interpretations…? Then everybody can declare victory and go home.
Look, China’s going to ruffle its own feathers. Or not. It’s the USA that Taiwan has to keep on board, and it’s obvious what the USA would think of such an adventure.
Tsai’s moderation is part of what makes her so popular. It shows that she is a stable, reliable person who is aware of the world around her, and can be trusted not to muck things up. (Unlike certain other candidates one might mention…) Of course there are no guarantees, and she (or China) could always surprise us.
Also, she’s going to have what Americans call “coat-tails” (i.e., her popularity will boost the chances for other DPP candidates). Hung has negative coat-tails. Soong doesn’t have very many allied candidates to boost or sink.
[quote=“Zla’od”]How about “Taiwan has been independent since ancient times”?
Or better yet, .[/quote]
Sure, you get the idea. That’s the kind of rhetoric that the Chinese intuitively appreciate regardless of whether they agree or not.
US track 1/1.5 has many times spoken about Taiwan’s de facto independence, AND refusing to endorse Chinese claim that Taiwan is a part of China.
You could interpret it as not declaring independence on Taiwan’s behalf, but you could also interpret it the other way. As only you (suppose you were China) perceive that Taiwan hasn’t declared independence, then whatever US says or Taiwan says, you’ll refuse to accept that Taiwan is independent anyway. No problem.
It is in this way that US proclaims independent of Taiwan vis-a-vis China, but not saying Taiwan is independent from any other particular country.
A decade or so ago, China started sponsoring Tibetology conferences, so pro-exile Tibetan scholars wouldn’t have the field to themselves. At the first meeting in Lhasa, the convener said as much to the attendees, and told them that in order to impress foreign scholars, they should be sure to use things like footnotes and references in their papers. An auspicious beginning, surely!
Anyway, we are all the sons of our common and illustrious ancestor, George Psalmanazar.
Or it may very well be (if she’s hands on, keeps her appointments on a tight leash, micromanages/centralizes/is a control freak etc.). But that comes down more to personal leadership characteristics than ideology.