Can anyone tell me the major ideological differences between the pan-blue and pan-green camps (besides the obvious independence / reunificiation debate)?
For example, in the states, the Republicans are known for small gov’t, pro-gun, pro-life, trickle-down economics, etc, while the Democrats advocate more social services, pro-choice, anti-gun, etc etc. On most major issues, you can guess where a ‘typical’ Democrat or Republican would stand.
Is there a similar phenomenon in Taiwan politics, and if so, what are the major ideological differences (outside of the China issue)?
The DPP signed onto a lot of liberal causes (feminism, gay rights, the environment) back when their party was illegal. I get the feeling that stuff like this has lost its urgency…though they DID stick to their guns on nuclear power (against).
In general, it does seem like the DPP is more willing to spend money. Think of big budget items like defense or welfare guarantees. The KMT is much more pro-business, anti-tax on stuff like this.
But the bulk of their decisions are not based on ideology so much as haphazard power-arrangements of the moment.
But the bulk of their decisions are not based on ideology so much as haphazard power-arrangements of the moment.[/quote]
Screaming Jebus i have to agree with you there sometimes when I watch the news for a few nights consecutive it seems that they just seem to say what ever is contrary to the other guy and then next week it is all different, I am really finding it hard to get a handle or what positions anybody supports aside from the unification/Independence thang.
Speaking in the rain at his rally in Taipei yesterday, Hsu said that it is time that Taiwan proposed a new “one China” policy on its own terms and said that future Taiwanese and Chinese diplomatic relations should be modeled on a European Union (EU)-style partnership.
Adding to the controversy of his proposal, Hsu made his comments yesterday in front of a poster featuring his picture next to Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), the late Chinese Communist Party leader who revolutionized the country’s economy. [/quote]
The only other differences in idealogy is the enthic hertiage platform. DPP like to tout a “nativist” stance of Hoklo heritage. KMT obviously have a more ethnic inclusive platform.
Everybody is Chinese and must be speak Mandarin or be shot is what most of us would call forced assimilation and not inclusiveness. The DPP is more multicultural and naturally more inclusive than the previous authoritarian, sino-centric eras.
As for the parties beoming more like each other in terms of policy, I couldn`t agree more. The collapsing support of the pan-blues has forced them to start listening more to the wisdom of RoT arguments.
Uh, my wife’s grandparents are definitely Taiwanese, and they don’t speak Mandarin. Could it be because they grew up before the ROC invasion of Taiwan? I hope that’s not to nit picky for you, ac-dropout.
Except for when it comes to Westerners, laborers from Southeast Asia, waishengren, and aborigines (who Annette Lu encouraged to all move to Latin America).
To call the DPP “inclusive” and “multicultural” is like saying Mao Zedong was like a big cuddly teddy bear who brought peace and prosperity to China.
Are you suggesting human rights for certain groups were better under previous sino-centric regimes.
Youre really overdoing it by comparing the DPP to Maos repressive genocide. Im not saying there isnt room for a great deal of work in the area of human rights in Taiwan. However, its still a tremendous improvement from the days when the dictatorial govt-in-exile violently suppressed all non-Kuoyu speakers and forced assimilation of the non-Chinese majority was the norm.
Not to be nit picky either, but the most common vernacular in Taiwan is the Minnan tongue. It was violently suppressed under your previous beloved dictatorial regimes from China. Today, the majority no longer has to fear using it which is why I said the DPP gov`t is far more inclusive by comparison to the previous regimes.
Yeah but what use is the Minna tongue. English the international language of Business. Mandarin is the common language of the Chinese. And Cantonese is the common language of the Overseas Chinese.
So what about the Hakka and aboriginals. Would there be an A-mei if the KMT did not Sinocize her and teach her to sing in Mandarin?
Sinapore has people who speak Minnan as well, but they focus their public school education on the languages that have the most impact internationally.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]Yeah but what use is the Minna tongue. English the international language of Business. Mandarin is the common language of the Chinese. And Cantonese is the common language of the Overseas Chinese.
So what about the Hakka and aboriginals. Would there be an A-mei if the KMT did not Sinocize her and teach her to sing in Mandarin?
Sinapore has people who speak Minnan as well, but they focus their public school education on the languages that have the most impact internationally.[/quote]
It is true that the DPP has introduced the Hakka Affairs Council and Hakka TV (although the KMT insists that this was first initiated under their administration, but I don’t know about that). Anyway, even though the DPP says that they’re doing things to create “ethnic harmony,” I don’t buy it for a second (nor would I buy it from the current KMT politicians). It’s all about attracting the Hakka and aboriginal votes. I wish the politicians here would start doing things because they’re the right thing to do. What the DPP has done has succesfully gotten them votes, but IMO has done nothing to create “ethnic harmony.” It’s all just smoke and mirrors …
As for the whole language issue … Mandarin is the official language. I think it’s great that they want to offer Minnan, Hakka, and aboriginal languages in the school systems. However, they’re trying to force too much down the throats of little kids. English should be kept as a required course (with lots of improvements in the English education system), and they should make room in the curriculum for elective classes for all levels of primary and secondary school, and give the children (and/or their parents) the option of selecting Hakka, Minnan (if they didn’t already learn it at home), aboriginal languages, music, more art, etc. Give the kids a chance to be creative. Hell, they could even teach “ethnic” music and art classes. That would be great for preserving and passing on indigenous culture, not just the language part of it.
As to the original topic of ideological differences between the pan-green and pan-blue camps, the only thing I can think of besides the whole unification issue is: “corrupt” and “corrupter”. At this point in time, I’m not yet sure which is which.
And the DPP’s dealing with big business, the running of the National Police Administration, $$$ transfers to its “diplomatic allies” are all just clean as a whistle … a comlete reform from the KMT days …
This is the real world … the party who is in power is going to use it for their own benefit … whether it’s the DPP or KMT.
So where does the opposition to weapons sales by the pan-blues come from? The KMT was desperate to upgrade the ROC’s weapons by purchasing second generation American technology all through the 70’s and 80’s. So why are they opposed to it now? Did they really change their mind and now believe that upgrading Taiwan’s weapons systems will endanger Taiwan? Or is it just another issue to disagree with the DPP on?
