The evaluation of Yoon Seok-yeol, the former Prosecutor General, in relation to the speeches of those who have personally spoken with him, is divided into two categories.
They are 'multiple talkers' and 'speakers'.
If we remove whether he likes former President Yoon or not, it is virtually the same evaluation.
It means 'too many words'.
Talking a
lot and being good at it are two different things, but
I haven't met a person who evaluates former President Yoon's words as 'violence murder'.
So far, there has been no problem with the words of former President Yoon.
'Variousness', which contradicts the authoritative positions of prosecutors and prosecutor-general, was often understood as looseness or familiarity.
In particular, there would hardly have been any controversy in private speaking, which was given enough time and consisted mainly of familiar people.
Since public speaking is a one-way speech rather than interactive, such as an inaugural address or a commemorative speech, it was possible to prepare in advance and refine the content.
Former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol's remarks in the evaluation of 'multiple talker' and 'explorer'
Since his political career began in earnest, former President Yoon often creates tales.
'Daegu Rebellion', '120 Hours a Week', 'Unclean Food', 'Healthy Feminism', and 'Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant' are hard to count with one hand.
In the harsh criticism of the passport of 'one nonsense a day', there are also evaluations such as "I talked a lot, so my words got twisted" or "I have a lot of things to say because I talk too long".
While acknowledging the inappropriateness of the statement itself, the evaluation reflects the regret based on the favorable feelings toward former President Yoon.
Regarding this, the former president's camp side said that it was
"a misunderstanding that occurred in the process of giving examples to help understanding"
or
"a result of not conveying the purpose properly
."
Former President Yoon himself gave an explanation.
"When I was a prosecutor, my job was to persuade the judges, the head of the organization, and members of the same team. Politics is a little different, but since I was just starting out, I think I might have caused misunderstandings by giving detailed examples."
The intention is that it happened because I was clumsy in speaking publicly to the public.
"Misunderstanding caused by the way of speaking"...Ex-President Yoon's side that there is no problem with perception
This position of former President Yoon and the camp side is just a misunderstanding arising from the way of speaking, and that there is no problem with remarks or perceptions themselves.
The opposition's advice, "You need to adapt to Yeouido's grammar" or "You need to keep your speech short," is also more of a problem with the way you speak, not the perception itself.
Yoon's explanation that 'I said that there is such a story, not my thoughts' also shows that he understands the latest tales as a matter of speech rather than perception.
However, the persuasive power is weak.
The remark of 'Daegu Rebellion' can also be understood as a false statement that came from over-focusing on the heart of the listener, that is, the pathos, in the atmosphere of a visit to the Daegu site.
However, it is difficult to see the other remarks as remarks made by the atmosphere.
Regarding the 'Fukushima nuclear power plant' remark, the camp of former Prosecutor General Yoon Seok-yeol's position was that the purpose of the remark was undermined in the process of shortening the interview. It is difficult to understand easily that the purpose is not conveyed properly.
Isn't it because of the exposure of perception, not the method of narration?
Still, there is room for understanding the remarks about the 'Fukushima nuclear power plant' as a result of limited expressive power or incorrect knowledge. There is some aspect to understand that the remarks are the result of inputting incorrect information or unfamiliarity with political speech rather than the convictions or perceptions of former President Yoon. However, it is difficult to explain '120 hours a week' or 'feminism' remarks such as 'I just introduced that there was such a story' or 'a misunderstanding occurred in the process of giving an example'.
This is even more so in that the speaker's perception is revealed through examples.
There are usually two situations when citing someone else's remarks or giving an example while telling a story. First, it is a case of presenting as an example to materialize or reinforce one's thoughts. The speaker is agreeing with the case cited or exemplified. Another case is to present one's own argument as a critical case to clarify. In this case, criticism of the statement or case is usually followed.
After the controversy, the '120 hours a week' or 'feminism' remarks that ex-President Yoon explained to the effect of 'quoting other people's comments' were not criticized even when looking at the context before and after. It can be seen that former President Yoon agreed with the 'remarks of others' or had considerable interest. It can be said that this is a story that stuck in the heart of former President Yoon,
otherwise there would be no reason to bring it up among many stories. Former President Yoon's controversial remarks were 'Yeouido grammar'This is the reason why the question is raised whether it is an exposure of perception rather than a mistake of a novice politician who is unfamiliar with it.
Why did you bring up 'feminism' to the question about countermeasures against the low birth rate?
In particular, 'feminist remarks' were even more so.
The remark of '120 hours a week' can be viewed in an aspect that the purpose of the statement was not conveyed properly due to the intensity of the number '120 hours'.
Looking at the context before and after, there is no lack of understanding that it is about 'the flexible management of working time by the workers themselves' regardless of whether they agree or not.
(Of course, the citation of '120 hours a week' is hardly understandable.)
But
what is the reason for quoting someone else's story that
'feminism prevents healthy dating between the opposite sex' in the
process of answering the countermeasures against the low birth rate
? .
Criticism is raised as to whether it is because former President Yoon really thinks that way, because even looking at the entire context of the question or answer, the reason or purpose of quoting the statement is not well explained.
The remark of 'unclean food' raises questions from another aspect.
The remark of 'unclean food' can be understood in terms of a paradox of regulation.
Although the controversy grew by citing the sensitive food issue as an example, there were also parts that were interpreted to mean that regulations do not always produce good results, such as the story that 'the interest restriction law may confiscate low-income people into the illegal bond market'.
However, the explanation aroused greater curiosity than the remark itself.
Citing 'Milton Friedman' while aiming to expand 'moderate/progressive'
Yoon's side explained that the remarks about 'unclean food' were citing examples from Milton Friedman's book 'Freedom to Choose'. The reason why I quoted the case from Milton Friedman's 'Freedom to Choose' out of many cases is probably because Yoon has a great affinity for Milton Friedman and 'Freedom to Choose'.
It's not a simple guess. Former President Yoon also made an official statement. In July 2019, the spokesperson's office of the Supreme Prosecutor's Office distributed explanatory materials for Yoon's inaugural address. The
new president, in particular, deeply sympathizes with the ideas of Milton Friedman, a Chicago school, and Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian school, and has been contemplating the issues of free market economy and criminal law enforcement
. The recent repeated emphasis on 'liberal democracy' by former President Yoon can be seen as the influence of Friedman and Mises.
What is curious is why former President Yoon quoted Milton Friedman's story.
Who is Friedman? He is considered to be close to libertarians, and he is a very right-wing figure even within the conservatives.
Friedman is a person who has a far more conservative economic outlook than the power of the people, which puts 'basic income' and 'economic democratization' in the party's program.
But, hasn't former President Yoon repeatedly said that he would gain 'overwhelming support from both moderates and progressives' beyond the conservatives?
.
Then, even if your thoughts are closer to Friedman, it would be advantageous to hide them in order to gain the support of 'centrism and post-progression'. Why did you have to expose them repeatedly?
Is it an expression of confidence that Friedman is unconditionally right, or is it a mistake in political judgment?
Yoon Seok-yeol's promise, which can be the most important criterion for evaluation
Perhaps former President Yoon thinks that if only the flag of 'anti-moon' is raised, the middle-class and post-progressive groups, who have been irritated by the Moon Jae-in administration's internal fire, will support him. You may have thought that how you are viewed rather than your own perception will define your identity. The background to this thought may have been that the public opinion for regime change is higher than the opinion for regime re-creation.
However,
recently
, the
public opinion for regime change has continued to decline, while the public opinion for regime re-creation is showing a continuous upward trend.
Although the proportion of public opinion replacement for stagnation is still relatively high, the recent trend suggests that the point is approaching when there will be no choice but to expand and maintain support with the 'ban-mun' flag alone.
What can former President Yoon show beyond the counter-question? The unprecedented COVID-19 has ushered in an era of great government. The deepening of polarization caused by COVID-19 and the reduction of jobs due to changes in the industrial structure are further strengthening the need for the role of the government. Can former Attorney General Yoon Seok-yeol, who was greatly influenced by Milton Friedman, respond to the changes of this era? Perhaps Yoon's policy (commitment) to be presented in the future, that is, Yun Seok-yeol's thoughts, may be the most important criterion for evaluating Yoon. And this could lead to another story.