Opinion: South Korea provides a lesson in stable democracy
The troubled tenure of South Korea's President Yoon Suk Yeol formally came to an end on April 4. The nation's Constitutional Court officially ruled that he had exceeded his authority and overstepped the law in declaring martial law and attempting to use the special powers thereof to maintain control of the government.
Under presidential orders, soldiers of the Republic of Korea Army did go to the parliament building and surrounded and entered the structure, but refrained from interfering with the business of the people's elected representatives.
That was a key moment and decision. Had the army seized control, even temporarily, the still relatively new democratic institutions of South Korea would have been put in serious jeopardy.
The unanimous decision of the court confirms the nation's parliament was justified in voting to impeach Yoon. He was arrested in December. Yoon is the first president to be formally charged with a crime while in office. He is officially accused of insurrection, and now will stand trial.
Prime Minister Han Duck-soo has been acting president, so far relatively smoothly.
Now there must be an election within sixty days. The front-runner at the moment is Lee Jae-myung, populist leader of the opposition Democratic Party. He barely lost a closely contested election to Yoon in 2022.
South Korea's political development has been rocky. Various former presidents have been imprisoned. They include former Presidents Lee Myung-bak, convicted of embezzlement, and Park Geun-hye, convicted of various forms of corruption. Park is also the first woman elected to lead South Korea and the daughter of notorious long-term dictator General Park Chung-hee.
Former President Park had her sentence reduced and she then received a pardon from reconciliation-minded President Moon Jae-in. She has enjoyed further public rehabilitation, reinforced by the fact that she may have been guilty of poor judgment but received no financial benefit from the alleged corruption.
Two generals, Chun Doo-hwan and Roh Tae-woo, served successively as president from 1980 following a military coup. Both were later convicted of crimes and briefly served prison terms before being pardoned.
General Park Chung-hee, father of Park Geun-hye, took power in a coup in 1961, then was elected president in 1963. He ruled until assassinated in 1979 by the head of the Korea Central Intelligence Agency.
This is a rather grim history of dictatorship, punctuated by violence, yet today South Korea has a functioning democracy under the rule of law. This positive consequence involves two U.S. presidents and their far-sighted public policies. Former Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, upon entering the White House in 1953, was able to end the brutal Korean War quickly and effectively.
The armistice still endures.
However, Ike was concerned that the weakened and devastated nation might soon fall to communism. The answer was comprehensive development. That laid the foundation for the modern South Korea, a miracle that transformed a poverty-stricken peasant society into one of the strongest, most dynamic economies in the world.
Dramatic economic development in turn provided the foundation for democracy.
Earlier, President Harry Truman took the extremely courageous decision to support United Nations efforts to defend South Korea from the invasion by North Korea. U.S. engagement did not end with the Korean War era.
South Korea's remarkable economic and political development unfolded while accompanied by increasing global influence. In 2012, President Barack Obama shrewdly nominated President Jim Yong Kim of Dartmouth College, who was born in Seoul Korea, as president of the World Bank.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
43 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democrats lost voters' trust. They need a new radical center wing to win it back.
The Democratic Party is in need of a thorough overhaul. Democrats clearly lost trust on the key issues voters care most about, yet instead of getting back to basics and earning back voters' confidence, the Democratic party leadership in D.C. has been riddled for six months with infighting and knotted into a blame game around the party's failure in 2024. This is not surprising. Too many party leaders have been content to ride the two-party pendulum into office every two, four, six or eight years, taking increasing amounts of campaign funding from interests who are perfectly fine propping up a system that has failed to deliver the American dream for more than a generation of regular folks. We have each worked in and around the Democratic Party for much of our careers. We've seen firsthand the party's lack of focus on macroeconomics and national security. We've seen the lack of curiosity and courage to solve big problems that require tough conversations for the benefit of the average Joe or Jane on Main Street. Well, Main Street spoke in 2024, and we are going to listen. Our starting point is the Constitution. Based on the first five months of executive orders and their one big outrageous bill, today's Republican Party is opposed to America's sacred statement of purpose, alienating patriotic Republicans and independents who have voted, served, and died in support of its timeless articulation of American values. What is that common purpose? It's the Constitution's preamble and its promise to 'form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity …' Even as Trump's faction actively undermines each promise, the Democrats' standing with Americans struggling to stay in the middle class, let alone climb higher, keeps slipping. The party seems oblivious that the general welfare is poor, and the blessings of liberty don't feel like blessings anymore. For average Americans, it all feels like walking a tightrope without a net. That's why we believe that it is time to build a new wing of the Democratic Party. Only a new wing — beholden to no special interests — can forge a durable new direction for the country to deliver the prosperity and security voters demand while embracing all who respect the Constitution. The U.S. has done this before. In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower was faced with a similar crisis: Neither party understood how to steer the nation through what would become a decades-long struggle between freedom and communist dictatorship. So Eisenhower jumped in the race, won in a landslide, and spent the next eight years building a bipartisan consensus on a 'grand strategy' to guide that mid-century struggle. It is now 34 years since Eisenhower's grand strategy defeated the Soviets, and neither party has offered a coherent replacement calibrated to the fundamentally different existential challenges we face today. It's not a surprise. From President Kennedy on, Washington forgot how to do grand strategy. China and Russia, however, have not forgotten and are celebrating (and stoking) our confusion. But grand strategy is not that hard to understand; it's just big. Grand strategy realigns domestic and foreign policy together, knowing that America always wins when we let our economic engine do the heavy lifting. And once we think like Ike and use the lens of grand strategy, a new direction is revealed. Today, the pieces of a powerful new economic engine are ready to assemble. There are massive pools of pent-up economic demand in housing, transportation, agriculture, energy and materials. There is plenty of private capital needing long-term certainty. And, there is more than enough fiscal space to get started without stoking inflation. In other words, a real full-employment, high-wage, high-return economy is just waiting for us to get our act together. To unleash that economic potential, this new wing of the party will have to cast aside ideology, myths and disinformation for what works in practice and at scale. We like to call this approach radical centrism. Radical centrism recognizes that good economic ideas are good if they deliver consistently for hard-working regular folks, not just the exceptional or exceptionally privileged. With a strong economic foundation, we'll earn back the tough America that deterred nuclear war, and the principled America that embraced its allies to stop two 20th-century authoritarian empires while improving lives around the world. The contrast is clear. The House GOP just revealed their know-nothing economic promises were yet another con and Trump's foreign policy is founded on corruption. Under MAGA supporting Republicans, the economy will only get worse between now and 2028, weakening American families and weakening us against Russia and China. Democrats have two election cycles left to get this right. That's why we'll be working to build a new wing of the party to reestablish that only Democrats can deliver for all Americans and meet our responsibilities to the world. At the end of the day, what's so radical about radical centrism? The only thing is that we want to actually get stuff done. Patrick Doherty is the former deputy director of the National Security Studies Program at New America. Rich Pelletier is the former deputy campaign manager for the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign. Peter Brown is a former aide to Colorado Gov. Jared Polis. The authors are the co-founders of the Center for the Constitution and Grand Strategy.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Navy Admiral On Pete Hegseth Renaming Harvey Milk Ship: ‘I Don't Agree With It'
WASHINGTON – Retired Navy Adm. James Stavridis said Friday that he disagrees with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordering the Navy to take the rare step of renaming the USNS Harvey Milk because Milk was gay. 'I am scratching my head about renaming the USS USNS … Harvey Milk,' Stavridis said on SiriusXM's 'The Michael Smerconish Program.' 'Because Harvey Milk was gay, we all know that. But today, gay sailors serve openly and with a great deal of pride in the U.S. military. I know many who are gay and are very competent, war-fighting sailors,' Stavridis said. 'So when [the] secretary of defense says, 'Hey, I'm renaming this in order to restore the warrior ethos,' I just don't get that at all.' Milk, who was a San Francisco politician in the 1970s and the first openly gay man elected to public office in California, served in the Navy for four years during the Korean War. He was forced to resign in 1955 rather than face a court-martial for being gay. A trailblazer in the LGBTQ+ community, Milk was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2012 and honored with a Navy ship named after him in 2016. Hegseth's order is unusual, and its timing — coinciding with Pride Month in June — was intentional, per a report. Asked for comment about Hegseth timing his order with Pride Month, a Defense Department spokesperson shared a statement from chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell that didn't actually answer the question. 'Secretary Hegseth is committed to ensuring that the names attached to all DOD installations and assets are reflective of the Commander-in-Chief's priorities, our nation's history, and the warrior ethos. Any potential renaming(s) will be announced after internal reviews are complete,' Parnell said in his statement. Asked again for comment on the timing of Hegseth's order to remove Milk's name from the Navy ship, the Defense Department spokesperson said only, 'I do not have any additional information to provide.' Stavridis, who served as the commander of the U.S. Southern Command from 2006 to 2009, and as commander of the U.S. European Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe from 2009 to 2013, recounted how gay soldiers have served in militaries for centuries. 'I'm Greek American. Arguably the greatest general in history, Alexander the Great, was gay,' Stavridis said. 'And oh, by the way, [gay] people serve at the highest level of the U.S. Cabinet today, like secretary of the treasury, who I think is doing a pretty good job with a tough hand of cards. [Scott] Bessent is openly gay.' 'So I don't get it on why we need to rename this ship, this moment, and also to do it during Pride Month,' he added. 'Just as kind of a shot across the bow. … I don't agree with it.' Someone else who doesn't agree with this is former longtime House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who tore into Hegseth over the move. 'The reported decision by the Trump Administration to change the names of the USNS Harvey Milk and other ships in the John Lewis-class is a shameful, vindictive erasure of those who fought to break down barriers for all to chase the American Dream,' Pelosi said in a statement. 'Our military is the most powerful in the world — but this spiteful move does not strengthen our national security or the 'warrior' ethos,' she said. Gay, lesbian and bisexual people have been openly serving in the U.S. military since 2011, when President Barack Obama signed a bill into law repealing the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. President Joe Biden lifted a ban on transgender people openly serving in the military in 2021, but President Donald Trump reinstated the ban this year.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
MSNBC silent on fallout from Karine Jean-Pierre's White House memoir
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre's upcoming memoir in which she reportedly calls the Democratic Party 'broken' is making waves across major news networks — except at MSNBC. The left-leaning network has remained silent since Jean-Pierre announced on Wednesday that she is ditching the party and becoming a registered independent, Former President Joe Biden's mouthpiece touted the party switch while plugging the release of her book, 'Independent: A Look Inside a Broken White House, Outside the Party Lines.' 4 MSNBC has not devoted coverage to the fallout from an upcoming memoir by former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. REUTERS In the book, due out in October, she distances herself from the Democratic Party and reportedly paints a damning portrait of her former workplace, describing the Biden administration as 'broken.' Jean-Pierre spent two years as the public face of the Biden White House and was the first black, openly gay woman to hold the role. Her abrupt political shift, combined with criticism of the president she once loyally defended, has triggered a flurry of reaction — especially among Biden allies. Former colleagues have not held back. Several have dismissed the book as a 'grift' and criticized her performance as press secretary, echoing complaints that have appeared in anonymous leaks to outlets like Politico and Axios. One former staffer reportedly told Axios: 'Nobody took her seriously in the building.' While harsh, the wave of criticism arguably reinforces the core claim of her book: that dysfunction inside the administration runs deep. The media response has been swift — at least on some networks. 4 Jean-Pierre revealed in her new memoir due out this fall that she is no longer a member of the Democratic Party. AP According to transcript data, Fox News mentioned Jean-Pierre by name 72 times between Wednesday and Thursday afternoon, according to Mediaite. CNN, despite its closer proximity to the Biden administration, referenced her 44 times. But MSNBC, where Jean-Pierre once worked as a contributor and was a regular on-air presence, has not mentioned her once, said Mediate, which first reported on the network's odd silence. 'The fact that MSNBC is still ignoring the story (as of 1:15 p.m. Thursday) reveals that the editorial direction at the left-leaning network is not yet ready to cover political news that may not align with their past comments and positions,' one media analyst told Mediaite. 4 Former Biden officials have anonymously criticized Jean-Pierre in several news reports. Getty Images The Post has sought comment from MSNBC and Jean-Pierre. Before joining the White House, Jean-Pierre was a frequent progressive voice on the network, where she appeared on panels to support Democratic messaging and criticize the first Trump administration. Her visibility on the network played a key role in raising her public profile and likely aided her appointment to the White House podium following the departure of Jen Psaki. This isn't the first time MSNBC has avoided uncomfortable stories involving the Biden administration. Earlier this year, the network largely sidestepped coverage of 'Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover-Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again,' the book co-authored by CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios' Alex Thompson that revealed new details about Biden's cognitive decline and internal efforts to shield him from scrutiny. At the time, CNN and Fox News featured wall-to-wall coverage. MSNBC, by contrast, barely acknowledged the book at all. 4 Jean-Pierre was a frequent contributor to MSNBC before she joined the Biden administration. Shutterstock Critics say this selective editorial approach reflects a broader hesitance by MSNBC to air narratives that contradict its on-air talent's previous claims — especially about Biden's fitness for office or the strength of his administration. That discomfort, they argue, translates into silence.
