South Korea’s United Future Party succeeded in creating a head-to-head battle between the left and right, but the party had to face a disgraceful defeat by avoiding ideological struggles and failing to set the right agenda for the election.
Although by winning over 100 seats the party barely managed to block the ability of Moon, Jae-in's ruling Democratic Party to push through a constitutional amendment via a supermajority, it lost too many conservative warriors such as Na, Kyeong-won, Kim, Jin-tae, Jeon, Hee-kyeong, Min, Kyeong-wuk, Sim, Jae-cheol, Ahn, Sang-soo, Joo, Kwang-deok, Oh, Se-hoon, and Cha, Myeong-jin. I wonder how newly elected members like Tae, Goo-min (the famous North Korea defector also known as Thae, Yong-ho), Han, Ki-ho, Shin, Won-sik, Cheong, Kyeong-hee, and Kim, Ki-hyun will be able to cope with compensate for such losses.
The United Future Party’s election campaign strategies were extremely deplorable, and almost seemed as if they were chosen in order to fail.
1. Even though the UFP was the party which had elected two former presidents, Lee, Myeong-bak and Park, Geun-hye, it did not mount an active defense against the unfair trials and imprisonments of those two ex-presidents. It has acquiesced to the Moon, Jae-in regime’s “draining the swamp” strategy. By reneging on its duty to protect them, the UFP surrendered its role as a force for nation-building and confirmed its own corruption, serving to validate the accusations of the ruling party. It was a suicide mission which provided justification to the leftist party’s strategy of impeaching the former president. Hong, Jun-pyo’s decision to expel Park, Geun-hye from the party was a climax of self-denial.
2. The UFP has not clarified its official position regarding the impeachment for over three years despite its historical significance. It neither apologized for it nor defended it. This was not a just a question of courage, but of intellectual ability and sincerity.
3. The party’s leader Hwang, Gyo-ahn joined hands with Yoo, Seung-min, considered by conservatives to be a betrayer, without confronting the past. The betrayers who had impeached a former president and laid the groundwork for the coming to power of Moon’s current regime were granted positions of supremacy in the party’s unification process. This enraged traditional conservatives because the process did not take the form of absorbing the minor Bareun Future Party, but rather resulted in the UFP being intellectually absorbed by them.
Integration with Yoo – the beginning of the defeat
4. Yoo demanded that the name of the party be changed from Liberty Korea Party to United Future Party. It was a mistake that caused great confusion in terms of image-making ahead of the election. While the name of Liberty Korea Party clearly demonstrated the party’s ideological identity, the party’s new name of United Future Party seemed to have been an odd combination of terms lacking any logic. It was also hard to remember. I believe that more than 10 seats were lost as a result of this change.
5. At the moment Hwang welcomed “betrayer” Yoo into the party, he broke with Reverend Jeon, Kwang-hoon who had been representing the people at the large Gwanghwamun square rallies. This led to the departure of traditional conservatives and thwarted a successful launch of the United Future Party. The combined approval ratings of the UFP and Yoo’s Bareun Party were a negative-sum and became the basis figure determining the election outcome. The gap between ratings directly resulted in the gap between seats won in the election.
6. Ahn, Cheol-soo, who represents the moderate People’s Party, supported the UFP by not nominating candidates in local constituencies. Hwang, Gyo-ahn failed to take advantage of this move as an opportunity to integrate with the moderates. He could have shown his gratitude to Ahn even if only for the sake of appearances. Although it was impossible to win the election without the integration of conservatives and moderates, Hwang was satisfied with the United Future Party “going it alone”.
7. It was a crucial mistake motivated by arrogance and vanity to hand over candidate nominating authority to Kim, Hyeong-oh, Lee, Seok-yeon, and Kim, Se-yeon, who were not attached to the United Future Party. The nomination committee was in conflict with Hwang on every occasion. There has also been controversy over the problem of nominations based on personal ties. As a result, the committee failed to impress the public even after replacing more candidates than Democratic Party.
8. The party did not raise ideological issues on the agenda of the general election. Focusing on criticizing the ruling party for the economic collapse, it failed to make voters feel a sense of alarm because it turned a blind eye to the security, diplomacy, and North Korea issues. The agenda should have been presented as a choice between the “Republic of Korea and Kim Jong-un,” and between “liberal democracy and communist tyranny”.
9. The party was defensive in response to the Coronavirus epidemic. It should have held the Moon regime responsible for refusing to ban the entry of Chinese travelers, which led to the deaths of more than two hundred people. However, the public was overwhelmed by self-praising reports from pro-government news outlets. The party should have highlighted the fact that the death toll in South Korea was higher than that of Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Mongolia combined.
Hwang’s candidacy in the Jong-no District was a mistake.
10. Hwang’s candidacy in the Jong-no district proved to be a mistake. It was something that a leader should not have done. He jumped into a hard-to-win fight. He was pushed by the media to run, and the political strategist Kim, Jong-in, whose values do not reflect those of the party, took over the leadership of the UFP’s election campaign. Kim’s long track record and his old age made the image of the UFP appear even more old-fashioned.
11. The expulsions of candidates Kim, Dae-ho and Cha, Myung-jin from the party were incidents in which the party succumbed to the left-wing’s well-known tactics of smearing and “frame-up'. Kim, Jong-in, as chairman of the election campaign committee, could have turned that smear campaign to the party’s advantage if he had responded properly. Instead, he was so terrified that he issued a drastic prescription to expel those candidates. Th media actively distorted the remarks of those candidates, and mocked them by taking them out of context.
12. Despite all the statistics foreshadowing a crushing defeat, the UFP deceived voters into believing that it was winning. The party raised an “SOS” alarm signal saying “the ability to block a constitutional amendment is at stake” just two days before the election, but by then such an appeal was far too late.
In the end, Hwang, Gyo-ahn had abandoned ideological campaign strategies, and created a messy election campaign full of bureaucratic clichés. In Korea’s political arena where ideological confrontation continues, he proved the fact that ideology is the most important strategy. The core of an election campaign is image manipulation. However, the image of the United Future Party was vague. Image-building begins with proper terminology. The worst name, United Future Party, resulted in the loss of more than 10 seats. He was also seen as irresponsible as he hurriedly announced his resignation from the party’s leadership and left the scene in the midst of the vote counting process. In doing so, he perhaps hoped to avoid true responsibility for the inherent malpractice on the part of the UFP in this election.
https://www.onekoreanetwork.com/post/the-fall-of-the-united-future-party-a-series-of-mistakes
망할 짓만 골라서 한 통합당
미래통합당은 좌우 1 대 1 싸움판을 만드는 데는 성공하였으나 이념전쟁을 피함으로써 선거의 주제를 설정하지 못하여 져도 더럽게 지는 길을 택하였다. 기존의석은 겨우 유지, 개헌저지선엔 턱걸이 하였으나 전사(戰士)들을 너무 많이 잃었다. 나경원, 김진태, 전희경, 민경욱, 심재철, 안상수, 주광덕, 오세훈, 차명진 후보 등의 낙선을 태구민(태영호), 한기호, 신원식, 정경희, 김기현 같은 당선자들이 메워줄지 궁금하다. 미래통합당의 선거전략을 보면 '망할 짓 골라서 한다'는 말이 절로 나온다.
1. 박근혜·이명박 대통령을 배출한 정당인데도 두 사람이 구속기소되고 억울한 재판을 받고 있는 데 대하여 적극적인 방어에 나서지 않았다. 이로써 문재인 정권의 '적폐청산론'을 묵인 내지 추인하는 꼴이 되었다. 자당(自黨) 출신 두 대통령 보호의무를 저버림으로써 두 사람으로 상징되는 대한민국 건설세력의 업적을 스스로 부정하고 정권이 말한바 적폐세력임을 확인시켜주었다. 이는 좌익의 체제탄핵 전략에 명분을 준 자살행위였다. 홍준표 대표가 구속재판을 받는 박근혜 씨를 출당까지 시킨 것은 자기부정의 극치였다.
2. 탄핵 이후 3년이 지나도록 이 역사적 사변에 대한 정리된 입장을 문서화하지 못했다. 사과도 옹호도 하지 않았다. 용기의 문제라기보다는 지적(知的)능력과 성실성의 문제였다.
3. 황교안 대표는, 과거를 정리하지 못한 상태에서 보수배신자 유승민과 손을 잡았다. 자당(自黨) 대통령을 탄핵하는 데 앞장서 문재인 정권 등장의 레일을 깔아주었던 이들을 갑(甲)으로 대우, 정통보수 세력을 화나게 만들었다. 당력(黨力)이 10대 1인 새로운 보수당을 흡수하는 것이 아니라 정신적으로 흡수당하는 형식이었다.
유승민 세력과 손잡은 게 패착의 시작
4. 유승민 측의 요구대로 '자유한국당'을 버리고 '미래통합당'으로 이름을 바꾼 것은 선거를 앞두고 이미지 메이킹에 일대 혼란을 불러일으킨 실수였다. 이념적 정체성을 정확하게 담은 자유한국당 간판을 내리고 새로 건 미래통합당은 미래와 통합의 연결논리가 이어지지 않아 물과 불을 섞은 것 같고 외우기 힘든 고통스러운 명사였다. 이 개명(改名)으로 10석 이상을 잃었을 것이다.
5. 황교안 대표는, 보수 배신자 유승민 세력을 영입하는 그 순간 광화문 세력을 대표하는 전광훈 목사와는 결별하였다. 이는 정통보수 세력의 이탈을 가져와 미래통합당 출범 효과를 무산시켰다. 새로운 보수당과 자유한국당 지지율의 합산(合算)이 마이너스로 나타났고 이게 이번 선거의 기본 수치가 되었다. 정당 지지율 차이가 의석수 차이로 나타났다.
6. 중도를 대표하는 안철수 국민의당 대표는 지역구 공천을 포기, 사실상 미래통합당을 밀어주었는데도 황교안 대표는 중도와의 통합 계기로 삼지 못하였다. 안철수를 찾아가 감사를 표시하는 쇼도 하지 않았다. 보수와 중도의 통합 없이는 총선 승리가 불가능한데도 보수축소에 그친 미래통합당으로 만족하였다.
7. 공천을 자유한국당에 애착이 없는 김형오·이석연·김세연 주도에 맡긴 것은 오만과 허영심이 깔린 대실수였다. 공천관리위원회는 사사건건 황교안과 갈등하고 사천(私薦)시비를 불러 민주당보다 더 많은 물갈이를 하고서도 국민들을 감동시키는 데 실패하였다.
8. 총선의 주제를 체제문제로 가져가지 않았다. 안보, 외교, 북한 문제를 외면하고 경제파탄 비판에 주력함으로써 국민들이 절박성을 느끼게 만드는 데 실패하였다. '대한민국이냐, 김정은이냐' '자유민주냐 공산독재냐'라고 정직하게 말했어야 했다.
9. 코로나 사태에 수세적으로 대응하였다. 문재인 정부가 중국인 입국을 허용하여 200명 이상을 죽게 한 책임을 물었어야 하는데, 친여(親與)언론이 쏟아내는 자화자찬의 방역성공담에 눌렸다. 대만·싱가포르·홍콩·몽골의 사망자를 합친 것보다 더 많이 죽었다는 점을 부각시켰어야 했다.
황교안의 종로구 출마는 실수
10. 황교안 대표의 종로구 출마는 전략적 실수였다. 이기기 힘든 싸움에 명분론으로 뛰어든 것은 지도자가 해선 안 될 일이었다. 언론이 등을 미니 내키지 않은 출마를 한 것인데, 그리하여 통합당의 선거지휘는 가치관이 맞지 않은 김종인 씨가 대행하게 되었다. 김종인 씨의 과거행적과 나이가 미래통합당의 이미지를 더욱 따분하게 만들었다.
11. 김대호·차명진 후보제명 소동은 좌익의 장기(長技)인 막말프레임에 굴복, 자폭한 사건이다. 김종인 선대위원장이 당당히 대응하면 유리하게 만들 수 있는 소재였는데 지레 겁을 먹고 '후보제명'이란 극약처방을 내렸다. '후보제명'이 막말 아닌 말을 막말로 기정사실화하고 널리 알리는 계기가 되었다. 1단 기사감을 머리 기사로 키워준 자해(自害)였다.
12. 모든 통계가 참패를 예고하는데도 통합당은 이기고 있다고 국민들을 속였다. 총선 투표 이틀을 남겨두고 '개헌저지선도 위태롭다'고 SOS를 쳤지만 너무 늦었다.
-결국 황교안 대표는 사상투쟁을 포기하고 관료적 상투적 선거운동으로 전략 전술이 헝클어진 선거판을 만들고 말았다. 이념대결이 지속되는 한국의 정치판에선 이념이 가장 큰 전략이란 점을 다시 한번 가르쳐주었다. 선거전략은 이미지 조작(操作)이 핵심인데 미래통합당의 이미지는 애매하기만 하였다. 이미지는 이름에서 출발한다. 미래통합당이란 최악의 작명(作名)이 10개 이상의 의석을 날렸을 것이다. 개표 진행중에 서둘러 당직 사퇴를 발표하고 떠나는 무책임한 모습도 보였다. 그렇게 함으로써 이번 선거가 가진 본질적 부정성(不正性)을 희석시켰다.
