Taiwan Independence Got the Leader It Deserved

Taiwan Independence Got the Leader It Deserved
China Post Editorial
Bevin Chu
December 15, 2008

Some Taiwan independence hardliners, among them Deep Green theoretician Lin Cho-shui, have bemoaned the fact that Chen Shui-bian has made Taiwan independence synonymous with unprincipled opportunism. These Taiwan independence hardliners are indignant. They say "Taiwan independence was a worthy ideal. Taiwan independence did not deserve to be betrayed by an unprincipled opportunist such as Chen Shui-bian. Chen Shui-bian was an unworthy leader, but that hardly invalidates Taiwan independence, which remains a worthy ideal."

Wrong.

Taiwan independence hardliners who bemoan "betrayal" by Chen Shui-bian remind one of Johnny Caspar, the upstart mafioso in the Joel and Ethan Coen gangster classic "Miller's Crossing." The film opens with Caspar railing about "ethics," about the lack of honor among thieves.

Caspar: "I'm talkin' about friendship. I'm talkin' about character. I'm talkin' about ethics. When I fix a fight I figure I got the right to expect that fight to go off at three to one. But this son of a bitch Bernie Bernbaum's sellin' the information I fixed the fight. He is sellin' tips on how I bet. So, back we go to these questions -- friendship, character, ethics. It's gettin' so a businessman can't expect no return from a fixed fight. Now, if you can't trust a fix, what can you trust? You're back with anarchy. Right back in the jungle. That's why ethics is important -- what separates us from the animals, the beasts of burden, the beasts of prey. Ethics."

Anyone who has ever seen "Miller's Crossing" has chuckled at Caspar's sputtering indignation, at his utter obliviousness to his own hypocrisy. Taiwan independence hardliners who rail about "betrayal" by Chen Shui-bian, are the "bai dao" counterparts of the "hei dao" Johnny Caspar, who railed about "betrayal" by his partner in crime, Bernie Bernbaum.

Taiwan independence hardliners cloaked their morally reprehensible political movement in the guise of freedom and human rights. Were they "betrayed" by a morally reprehensible political leader in the guise of a champion of freedom and human rights? Or did they merely find their perfect match?

Famed American journalist H.L. Mencken, editor of the Baltimore Sun, once quipped that "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." The Taiwan independence movement knew what it wanted, and got it good and hard.

New Party Co-Founder and one time Chen Shui-bian political rival Jaw Shao-kang echoed Mencken's sentiments. Jaw quipped that "Under democracy people make their own beds, then have to lie in them." The Taiwan independence movement made its own bed. Now it has to lie in it.

The Taiwan independence movement did not wind up with a leader like Chen Shui-bian "by accident." The Taiwan independence movement did not wind up with a leader like Chen Shui-bian because it was "unlucky." The Taiwan independence movement wound up with a leader like Chen Shui-bian because it chose him. Step by step, Taiwan independence hardliners' uncritical support lifted him up the ladder of power, from Republic of China Legislator to Mayor of Taipei to Chairman of the DPP to President of the Republic of China. Taiwan independence hardliners supported Chen Shui-bian not because he was a "champion of freedom and human rights." They supported him because he was the "Son of Taiwan," because he was "one of us" and not "one of them," because he was "Taiwanese, not Chinese."

The Taiwan independence movement purports to champion freedom and human rights. It boasts of "ren quan li guo," of "founding a nation on human rights." But to ascertain what values a person truly champions, one need only ascertain what values he is willing to sacrifice. If someone assures us he is a champion of freedom and human rights, but sacrifices freedom and human rights to ethnic identity and ethnic solidarity, then he is not a champion of freedom and human rights. He is a champion of ethnic identity and ethnic solidarity.

And so it is with the Taiwan independence movement. Taiwan independence hardliners obsess endlessly about the need for "localization," "nativization," and "cultivating a Taiwanese consciousness." Taiwan independence hardliners are not champions of freedom and human rights. They are champions of morally reprehensible "Taiwanese, not Chinese" identity politics rooted in ethnic hatred and ethnic prejudice.

The Taiwan independence movement reaped what it sowed. The Chinese term, "yin guo bao ying," or "cause and effect," says it all. Taiwan independence, a morally defective political movement, was not "betrayed" by a morally defective political leader. The Taiwan independence movement was no more betrayed by Chen Shui-bian than the Nazi movement was betrayed by Adolf Hitler, or the Fascist movement was betrayed by Benito Mussolini. The Taiwan independence movement got exactly the leader it deserved. No more, no less.