[Viewpoint] The Deliberate Misjudgments of Lee Jaemyung and Cho Kuk

The two politicians who successfully concluded the general election are currently the figures most in need of social attention. If their interpretations of the election results and the decisions based on them stem from pure conviction, there is no problem in that itself. However, the intentional disregard of misinterpretations or distortions of public sentiment observed in these two politicians is a completely different issue.

This afternoon (29th), Lee Jae-myung, leader of the Democratic Party of Korea, who will meet with President Yoon Suk-yeol, intends to raise the issue of providing 250,000 won to all citizens. Because of this, our society has fallen into a fruitless debate over the effects or side effects of the 250,000 won. There is a back-and-forth discussion on whether the support money will stimulate inflation or whether it will have a consumption promotion effect. There is also controversy over whether there is enough capacity to spend the estimated 13 trillion won needed to give it to all citizens.

It is unclear whether the current situation is as critical as during the COVID-19 crisis, but since people’s livelihoods are indeed difficult, I agree that fiscal spending should be increased. The problem lies in the method. In a state where the rationality of indiscriminate cash support is not widely accepted, how much money is in the treasury is not the core issue. Just because a policy does not stimulate inflation to a significant degree does not mean a policy that should not be done becomes one that should be done.

The legislature is prone to the temptation of populist policies, so the constitution grants budget authority to the executive branch. The government has the obligation to establish institutional mechanisms that spread policy effects even to the darker corners. However, in a country where populist policies like cash handouts are frequently and easily decided, sustainable welfare systems are relegated to a lower priority. This results in moving away from the vision of building an 'institutionally' universal welfare state that we aspire to.

Nevertheless, the reason Lee believes he has gained the momentum to push his policy is likely because he subjectively interpreted that the public sentiment that judged the regime allowed it. However, nowhere have I heard the commentary that the ruling party lost because President Yoon was stingy with benevolent cash handouts. Lee’s use of the election results as a weapon to pressure the president into accepting basic income is an intentional misinterpretation of public sentiment and an unjust political act.

Cho Kuk, leader of the Cho Kuk Innovation Party, also shows aspects of misreading public sentiment in his post-election actions. Even if public sentiment entrusted Cho with the responsibility to judge the regime, many believe that the extreme language Cho uses contains a retaliatory sentiment against President Yoon, who handled his personal case. If the political direction is based on a private sense of victimhood, it is difficult to gain persuasive power.

Cho appears to be caught in a psychology that tries to narrow the scope of the mission entrusted to him. Civil society has demanded that Cho reflect on whether his family was involved in entrenching inequality by utilizing the legitimate yet covert inheritance methods of wealth and power enjoyed only by the privileged class, and the reality in which such a modern aristocracy has solidified.

We have gained a decisive opportunity to recognize and correct the existence of legal contradictions that operate in a way that strengthens polarization through the Cho family case. However, Cho must ask himself whether he is deliberately ignoring the cries of the citizens. Sharp language and calls for regime resignation can secure firm legitimacy only when they are within the framework of political reform that responds to such demands of the times.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.