I approve of President Yoon Seok-yeol's Q&A on his way to work and door stepping.
I think it is much more positive compared to the previous administration, which was close to breakdown, or the previous administration, which was locked in a bedroom and called for the 'lost 7 hours' controversy.
There are concerns about the lack of message management, but this is a power point of view.
It is good for the people that the president's commute to work is broadcast live and that the country's most powerful person directly expresses his or her opinion on pending state affairs.
Arguably, if President Yoon's door stepping disappears at some point, it will be a sign that the regime is in crisis.
However, President Yoon's recent morning message is almost accidental.
A typical example was the statement that "approval rate is meaningless".
'Approval ratings don't mean much, and I will only think of the people and work hard' is almost a self-defeating statement.
The approval rating goes up or down, but anyway, it's a survey of the people.
If the approval rate is meaningless and you only look at the people, then what country did you study the approval rate for?
It was the approval rating that pushed me to become a powerful presidential candidate.
What is particularly striking these days is the president's 'former government' command.
It is the current administration that entered into the failure of the previous administration, and the former administration is to blame for every major issue.
Most of the time it was a time when there was a personnel controversy.
When the talk about In-seon, the head of the Financial Supervisory Service, who was a prosecutor, came out, he said, "In the past, people from Minbyon did nothing," causing controversy.
Recently, for two days in a row, the former administration was summoned to criticize Kim Seung-hee, a candidate for Minister of Health and Welfare, and Park Soon-ae, a deputy prime minister for education.
"
However, even considering some personnel failures of the previous administration, this is inevitably subjective.
This is because it is not clear what the criteria for being superior to the previous administration was based on.
Is it possible that President Yoon has not worked with all the ministers of the previous administrations, or that the presidential report shows the abilities of the ministerial candidates as numbers like a game?
It is questionable how many people will really agree with the president's words.
Even if there are many, this is bound to be a 'language of division' that excludes those who do not agree.
Enlarging an image
Furthermore, in recent years, the chronic disease of power that replaces objective criticism with 'attack' is reflected.
That's what Park Soon-ae, who eventually forced her appointment, said, "I suffered a lot from being attacked by the media and opposition parties" at the award ceremony for the nomination letter for the nominee for education deputy prime minister Park Soon-ae.
How can you call the fact that a minister candidate, and also the head of education in a country, pointed out that he was driving the car with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.251%, which he couldn't even move properly, as an attack?
If it is the same logic, should we call all investigations into the power that the president continued as a prosecutor as an attack?
Some cite President Yoon's 'trauma of the previous administration' as the reason, who was persecuted after the investigation into the former minister of the country.
As a result, the persecution made President Yoon Seok-yeol, but the hardship, frustration, and humiliation he experienced at that time form the basis of the president's sentiments.
There is also an interpretation that the hostility towards the previous administration is the basis for a sense of superiority that 'we are still better than the previous administration'.
However, even if that is the case, that cannot be an excuse for personnel failure.
This is a separate issue from the responsibility of the leader.
Historically, the trauma of a leader has been negative if it is negative, and it has never been a positive one.
The popular opinion is that the change of government after 5 years is not because of the people's strength, but that the Democratic Party failed.
This means that this government was elected by the people to do better than the previous government.
"Isn't it better than the previous government?" is not what the people want to hear.
' The answer "Didn't the Democrats do that?" can be a logic to shut the Democrats' mouths, but the spokesperson of the ruling party said, "Isn't it possible to answer the public's question, "Isn't it elected not to be like the Democrats?" These are the words that the president and those in power need to keep in mind now.
(Photo=Presidential Office Correspondent Photo Reporters, Yonhap News)