Why Lee Jun-seok Is a Bad Politician
Lee Jun-seok initially emerged as a fresh figure in the conservative camp, advocating for reform as a young politician. However, over time, he has exhibited opportunistic behavior, fueled internal party conflicts, divided the public, displayed moral shortcomings, and engaged in populist political tactics. Analyzing his political trajectory reveals a pattern where he prioritized his own political survival and advantageous positioning over the interests of his party. This approach has had a negative impact on South Korean politics.
1. Opportunistic Behavior and Inconsistent Political Stance
Lee Jun-seok has frequently changed his stance based on his political advantage, demonstrating the typical traits of an opportunistic politician.
(1) Advocating Conservative Reform While Fueling Internal Divisions
- During his tenure as party leader, he emphasized "conservative reform" but, in reality, fostered internal conflicts and attempted to privatize the party.
- He strengthened his political influence by strategically clashing with internal figures, consolidating power through factional disputes.
(2) Taking Credit for Success and Shifting Blame for Failures
- When the People Power Party (PPP) won the 2022 local elections, he claimed credit, arguing that the victory resulted from his reform efforts.
- However, when election results were unfavorable or internal party issues arose, he deflected all responsibility onto the leadership or other key figures.
(3) Changing Political Alliances and Dividing the Public
- Initially, he championed conservative innovation, but as his political standing weakened, he distanced himself from the conservative camp and incited division.
- He harshly criticized specific politicians in the past, only to later realign with them when it suited his political needs, switching alliances based on personal gain.
2. Election Strategies and Policies That Divided the Public
During the presidential election, Lee Jun-seok led campaign strategies that polarized the public rather than fostering unity.
(1) Fueling Gender Conflicts
- To appeal to male voters in their 20s and 30s, he promoted policies that exacerbated gender conflicts.
- He advocated for abolishing the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, framing it as a symbolic move to stoke gender division.
- Instead of addressing fundamental gender equality issues, he used gender politics as a tool for political gain.
(2) Promoting Discriminatory Policies Targeting Specific Groups
- He adopted strategies that deliberately targeted certain demographic groups to stir public emotion, particularly focusing on young male voters while marginalizing women, workers, and vulnerable groups.
① Advocating the Abolition of the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family & Gender Quota System
- His push to abolish the ministry was primarily aimed at aggravating gender tensions rather than providing a concrete policy solution.
- While he claimed to emphasize fairness by opposing gender quotas, his stance ultimately limited opportunities for women’s social advancement.
② Opposing Preferential Hiring Policies & Distorting the Concept of Fairness
- He argued that certain hiring advantages (e.g., for disabled individuals and women) were unfair, advocating for reinstating military service bonus points for job applicants.
- This approach resonated with young male voters but also fueled misogyny and social division.
- However, military service bonus points had previously been ruled unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court, making his proposal legally contentious.
- Rather than addressing the root causes of youth unemployment, he manipulated public frustration by scapegoating certain groups.
③ Pitting the Young Against the Elderly for Electoral Gains
- While emphasizing youth policies, he framed welfare programs for the elderly, such as basic pensions and senior job creation initiatives, as excessive spending.
- He fueled generational conflict by portraying senior welfare policies in a negative light, despite their necessity in an aging society.
- This alienated older voters and further deepened intergenerational tensions.
3. Destroying Party Democracy and Fueling Internal Divisions
As party leader, Lee Jun-seok did not strengthen internal democracy but rather exploited divisions to solidify his position.
(1) Clinging to Power and Resisting Disciplinary Actions
- Despite facing ethics committee disciplinary action over allegations of sexual bribery and evidence tampering, he refused to accept party rules and instead intensified internal strife.
- To protect his political career, he attacked the party’s ethics committee, further exacerbating divisions.
(2) Weakening the Party Organization by Maximizing Internal Conflicts
- Rather than fostering party unity, he deepened internal conflicts and weakened the party’s organizational structure.
- Instead of advancing policy discussions, he fueled factional disputes, ultimately diminishing the party’s competitiveness.
4. Moral Issues: Allegations of Sexual Bribery and Lying
Lee Jun-seok’s political integrity was significantly damaged by allegations of sexual bribery and evidence tampering.
(1) Sexual Bribery Allegations and Evidence Tampering
- He was accused of receiving sexual favors from businessman Kim Seong-jin in 2013 and allegedly instructed the destruction of related evidence.
- Given the importance of ethical standards for politicians, these allegations alone severely undermined his credibility as a party leader.
- Instead of taking responsibility, he dismissed the accusations as a political conspiracy, opting for a defensive strategy.
(2) Lying and Changing Stances
- He frequently shifted his political positions, advocating one ideology in the past only to change his stance when it became politically inconvenient.
- While presenting himself as a politician of integrity, his contradictory statements and actions repeatedly damaged his credibility.
5. Populist Politics and Social Media-Driven Strategy
Lee Jun-seok adopted a populist approach, prioritizing emotional manipulation over substantive policy discussions.
(1) Emotional Politics via Social Media
- Instead of focusing on policy vision, he relied on social media to engage in emotional and reactionary discourse.
- Rather than persuasively articulating political logic, he resorted to provocative rhetoric to manipulate public sentiment.
(2) Exploiting the Image of Youth Politics for Personal Gain
- He initially positioned himself as the face of youth politics but failed to propose substantial policies benefiting young people.
- Ultimately, he exploited his youthful image as a mere political tool for personal survival.
Conclusion: Opportunism, Public Division, and Moral Failings
Lee Jun-seok proclaimed himself a champion of conservative reform, but in reality, he prioritized his political survival at the expense of party unity and public cohesion.
- He used gender conflict as a political tool.
- He pitted social classes and generations against each other, deepening national divisions.
- He prioritized factional conflicts over policy advancement, weakening party structure.
- His ethical controversies severely damaged his credibility.
Ultimately, rather than fostering national unity, he built his political career on division and polarization, leaving a lasting negative impact on South Korean politics.
Despite his young age, he has already spent 14 years in politics, adopting all the worst traits of traditional politicians.
That being said, blaming only Lee Jun-seok is insufficient.
"How can the lower streams be clean when the upper waters are murky?"
When veteran politicians commit all sorts of corrupt acts without shame, continuing to hold power despite their misdeeds, what lessons could Lee Jun-seok possibly have learned?