As they evidently can’t. Last year’s US presidential election was a clear enough demonstration of that. A very high proportion of voters in every part of the world are unfit to discharge the responsibilities that come with having the right to elect their leaders.
That’s a very strange thing to conclude for somebody who believes strongly in democracy.
You seem to be focused on the legacy issue thing - so I’ll address that. Sure, people are judging the KMT on what they did when in power. How is that surprising? It is emphasised by a leadership who seem to be more backward looking than progressive (which is not helped by them disowning the LTH years, and so harking back to the ‘golden years’ of Chiang Jing Guo). If you’ve got a history like that of the KMT, then people will need some sort of evidence that you’ve changed - or indeed want to change.
As i’ve mentioned before, an outsiders view on history is that the KMT was an incompetent, corrupt and ruthless regime which lost one country, and opressed another. On the plus side, they have reformed the country and put more money in your average Taiwanese pocket. I suspect many locals focus more on that last bit, while most foreigners focus more on the first bit.
Well, Americans have never stopped celebrating Andrew Jackson even though he did a bunch of stuff to the Indians. Does that mean they support killing more Indians? No. I don’t think any of the pan-blue people who mention Chiang Jing Guo is asking for more repression as opposed to thinking about his economic policies, kind of like pan-greens who hark back to the “golden years” of Japanese colonization.
I just think that, if you can accept Taiwan being completely different from ten years ago, you have to accept that the political landscape is also different from ten years ago, and not project what the pan-greens think about the pan-blues onto pan-blues. Yes, the KMT is an old party, a bit ungainly in organization, but all the old stuff they did is, frankly, not all that relevant. How can people on the one hand believe that LTH “changed his mind” so whatever he did before “doesn’t matter,” but on the other hand, refuse to believe that the other people in KMT, having been under the same forces at work in the KMT, underwent changes as well?
Somewhat off topic, but I’ve read some analysis of the civil war that diverged from the mainstream reasoning (that the KMT was incompetant, corrupt, unpopular, etc). The focus was instead primarily on the military conflict between the Nationalist and Red Armies. The arguement goes, that it wasn’t the political shortcomings of the Nationalist government that caused their defeat, but rather that the politics was a backseat to the military campaign in which the Red Army would eventually outmaneuver the Nationalists. A lot of emphasis is placed on campaigns of 1948 in north-central China and how the communist victory doomed the Nationalist government. A lot has been made about the inevitability of the KMT losing, I for one actually subscribed to this school of thought, but at least now I have new perspective in that defeat was not certain and victory could have been acheived had certain battles just went the other way. The nationalists had a superior army and superior weaponry, but the problem was that the territory they had to defend was vast and they could not concentrate their forces in one specific region to fight the communists. The communists on the other hand, were able to gain a secure staging point in Northeastern China and aggressively dictate the course of the war on their terms.
Maybe they have, but it sure doesn’t show.
Well, perhaps I should be told what legitimate changes LTH has undergone such that people give him a pass (other than that he is now pan-green).
LTH is a senile old fool who can’t give up the limelight. Why are you so obsessed with him?
Eh? This has nothing to do with what any pan-green thinks. This POV is based on history - generally written by waigouren for waigouren. Sure, there are other issues than history, but this seems to be the one you’re hung up on.
Ah, well. I’d have to disagree with that. I’d like to see some sort of reform in the KMT before I’d agree with you - for example, just look at their attempts to elect a new chairman: can’t agree on a date, can’t agree on who can vote, and ridiculous shuffling around before one of their candidates decides to stand. They still give the impression of being a party setup for one-party rule who still don’t quite understand the concept of how this democracy thing works (despite granting it to the country).
One issue for us foreigners is often that the history is actually fresher in our minds. When I arrived in Taiwan, I knew next to nothing about it (‘What do you mean, it’s not a country?’), and so have picked up the history over the last few years. Broadly speaking, my reaction to the history is: “WTF? They did WHAT?!? And people still vote for them? Why?”
Zeugmite, the legacy issue is just one of many issues. Obviously the blues want to forget about it because they have everything to lose. I would not even call it legacy issue as it still affects taxpayer
Very nice posts, David. 4nr too, good points above.
I strongly agree that the ‘legacy’ issues will remain relevant until the KMT shows real desire to come clean. It’s well known that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. So it’s perfectly valid to judge them on their past. I, for one, am not yet convinced they really believe in democracy – just look at the ridiculous fuss they made after the shooting – and I haven’t really seen any convincing evidence of deep-down reform. Like communist parties in some former Soviet-block states, I figure they should just be outlawed, stripped of their assets, and disbanded. If there is any real, upright young talent among them, they could form one or more new parties. Only then would their dirty rotten past truly be relegated to the ‘legacy’ pile.
(And BTW, I don’t know a single American among the thousands I grew up with who perpetually celebrates Andrew Jackson. Or even any who have ever uttered a single word of praise about him. He’s just distant history to me.)
It’s the economy, stupid.
Most people don’t care about shit that happened 50 or even 20 years ago, they care about bread and butter issues that effect them now. Because Taiwan’s economic boom coincided with KMT rule, and Taiwan’s relative decline has coincided with A-Bian’s rule, many Taiwanese conclude (rightly or wrongly) that the KMT are better stewards of the economy. So most Blue supporters vote Blue in hopes of making themselves richer. That’s a universal in most countries - people vote with their pocketbooks first. Especially in a place like Taiwan that is so materialistically oriented.
Foreigners aren’t as interested in unemployment levels and rising wages and stock portfolios, but rather things like human rights, freedom, democracy, etc. In fact, practically the only foreigners as a community who seem to support the Blues are - you guessed it - foreign businessmen. Your average teacher/engineer/translator doesn’t care about the dipping stock market.
And I would say the same holds true for how Taiwanese and foreigners view the PRC. It is undeniable that the leadership there has implemented policies that have allowed many people to enjoy better lives. However, in the eyes of many Taiwanese and foreigners, that success will never make up for the fact that the Communist Party has still not come clean on things like Tiananmen. Is the mainland reforming? Sure, but for most people it won’t be reformed enough until the CCP comes clean about some of its bigger sins. Likewise, any party in the ROC that openly talks about unification with a territory still ruled by unrepentant murderers will be seen to have the same blood on their hands as that found on the ones they’d like to shake.
[quote]Most people don’t care about shit that happened 50 or even 20 years ago, they care about bread and butter issues that effect them now. Because Taiwan’s economic boom coincided with KMT rule, and Taiwan’s relative decline has coincided with A-Bian’s rule, many Taiwanese conclude (rightly or wrongly) that the KMT are better stewards of the economy. So most Blue supporters vote Blue in hopes of making themselves richer. That’s a universal in most countries - people vote with their pocketbooks first. Especially in a place like Taiwan that is so materialistically oriented.
Foreigners aren’t as interested in unemployment levels and rising wages and stock portfolios, but rather things like human rights, freedom, democracy, etc. In fact, practically the only foreigners as a community who seem to support the Blues are - you guessed it - foreign businessmen. Your average teacher/engineer/translator doesn’t care about the dipping stock market.[/quote]
An excellent point. If you compare the numbers of those who want unification with China to those who vote pan-blue, or the numbers of WSR, Hakka and Aborigines, to those who vote pan-blue. It’s clear that economic issues are more important than ideology and ethnicity. A lot of pan-blue voters think that Taiwan does better economically under the KMT and they want stability and economic progress so that they can make more money. Very few foreigners fall into this group.
Brian
RB, a bit too much of a generalization of foreigners I
I arrived here in 1988, after spending 1986-1987 in Beijing, and it seemed to me that anyone who wanted to reunite with the Mainland needed to get their head examined.
The DPP were pushing for democracy against what was still a one-party state, so it was natural to support them.
As far as media went, the only English newspapers were the China Post and the Taiwan News- and does anyone remember how the News was more right-wing than the Post?
One question I’ve wondered- has there ever been a poll of Taiwanese asking along the lines of:
“If China said that it was entirely up to Taiwan to choose re-unification or independence, which would you choose?”
Independence meaning Taiwan would be treated exactly like other foreign states- no tax breaks or special favours; re-unification on favourable terms- local autonomy etc.
What would the result be? It’s tied in here because I think a lot of people vote Blue out of fear; a fear not shared by most foreigners since we know we can always get out.
[quote=“tomtom taiwan”][quote=“ac_dropout”]Simply through observing the fact Taiwan is evenly divided on the issue.
The expat subpopluation is not evenly divided on the issue.[/quote]
Wait…so more foreigners disagree with YOU than agree with YOU. That means we are just not seeing things clearly? You can’t even say it is because they have divergent views from most Taiwanese. So since when does the fact that a majority of people have an opinion automatically mean they are correct? To cite an old example, Hitler was popularly elected in Germany. So by your rationale, a non-German who would not have voted for him would have been simply misinformed because he was not German and could not understand the situation.
[/quote]
It just points to the fact the many expatriates on Taiwan don’t share the same view as half the population on Taiwan, for whatever reason. People share the same opinion it is because they share a common background or a common goal.
Your German analogy, foreigners would vote for Hitler if they shared the same view as the majority of Germans or had the same political goals as the majority of Germans at the time.
So to summarize most expatriates on Taiwan don’t share the view of peacefully reconciling the Strait Issue with the PRC. Either because of the overriding value placed on “democracy” and “freedom.” Or because their home country would not be perceived as directly threaten by PRC in case of a war between PRC and ROC.
As Bu Lai En mention there are some categories of pan-Blue supporters expatriate could not identify with. Whereas almost anybody could identify with images of “victimization,” “democracy,” “freedom,” “ethnic empowerment.”
Thus the term “trouble makers”
That really doesn’t make any sense. it should have been possible to concentrate forces in the northeast and contain or destroy them. there were no other threats to defend against.
[quote]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/chinese-civil-war.htm
The civil war, in which the United States aided the Nationalists with massive economic loans but no military support, became more widespread
After numerous operational set-backs in Manchuria, especially in attempting to take the major cities, the Communists were ultimately able to seize the region and then focus on the war south of the Great Wall. And yet, even though the balance of power was shifting toward the CCP, there were still numerous opportunities for a negotiated settlement. Stalin actually tried to restrain Mao on several occasions while he gauged American responses to developments in China. After the Huai-hai Campaign, it seemed that the Communists were going to pause on the northern bank of the Yangtze River. Only when it became clear that American and British support for negotiations was lacking, did Stalin give Mao the go-ahead to cross the river. This culminated in the collapse of KMT resistance, which led directly to Chiang Kai-shek