단상斷想

In Korean politics, the names Choi Kang-wook and Cho Kuk are consumed as symbols of a specific camp, beyond individuals. However, it is not easy to call them 'competent politicians' or praise them as 'morally mature human beings'. Both have high levels of education, elite careers, and eloquent speech, but their concrete achievements in the political and administrative fields are insignificant or controversial. This phenomenon comprehensively reveals the structural problems of Korean politics. In the illusion that academic background and career lead to ability, their image is largely over-packaged than reality. Nevertheless, enthusiastic supporters follow them almost religiously, which should be understood as a complex social phenomenon that goes beyond the issue of personal appeal.

In particular, the recent sexual misconduct case within the Rebuilding Korea Party and its handling have clearly revealed the moral limitations of the politician Cho Kuk. Despite the occurrence of sexual misconduct internally, the party leadership's inadequate response has seriously damaged Cho Kuk's image, which was packaged as a 'symbol of reform.' Furthermore, this incident shows the illusion of progressive politicians who have claimed 'moral superiority,' and warns of the dangers that can arise when fandom politics lead to blind support instead of critical monitoring.

Choi Kang-wook has once again come under scrutiny for his controversial secondary victimization remarks against victims of sexual misconduct. Despite being a member of the Democratic Party and the head of the Democratic Party's Training Institute, he showed an attitude of diluting criticism or targeting victims by saying to those who raised issues with the sexual misconduct case, rather than acknowledging the faults within the camp through personal connections with the Rebuilding Korea Party, "Then there needs to be some judgment, but just because I like so-and-so and they say that, it seems like that's right, that's not it," and "That's the thinking of pigs and dogs." This only erodes political trust. However, his supporters still perceive this issue as merely a 'political attack' and show a defensive attitude, which clearly demonstrates the side effects of fandom politics.

Structural Causes of Fandom Politics

First, a strong political adversarial structure acts as a major cause. Antipathy towards the Yoon Seok-yeol regime and the conservative camp immediately turns Cho Kuk and Choi Kang-wook into 'victims' and 'scapegoats' who must be protected. This is related to the deeply rooted dichotomous thinking in Korean society, which perceives politics as a zero-sum game. The moment the other party is defined as an enemy to be completely excluded, critical thinking about one's own side is considered betrayal, and blind support is packaged as a virtue.

Second, the influence of the media and alternative media ecosystem is decisive. Repeated exposure through Kim Eo-jun's broadcasts, political entertainment shows like MaeBul Show, and the YouTube algorithm packages specific individuals as 'righteous fighters.' In a situation where the authority of traditional media has weakened, the influence of broadcasts or YouTube channels run by individuals on public opinion sometimes surpasses that of existing media companies. In particular, the algorithm-based content recommendation system creates an 'echo chamber' effect that reinforces the user's existing tendencies. Users are constantly exposed only to the content they want to see, which extremely simplifies their perception of a particular politician. Coupled with the public's desire for narratives rather than complex realities, the frame of 'a person who fought against the power that oppresses us' easily fills the void of charismatic leadership.

Third, public political fatigue and distrust are also important factors. In the midst of dissatisfaction with incompetent and corrupt politics, the paradox arises that a person attacked by the prosecution or the media is imprinted as 'one of us'. The greater the disappointment with the established political circles, the more those rejected by the system are automatically packaged as 'symbols of reform' or 'sacrificed heroes'.

This phenomenon can be said to be a product of public sentiment and the media environment rather than the competence of individual politicians. To be frank, there are not many truly competent politicians in Korean politics. Conflict resolution skills, policy expertise, long-term vision and execution are rare, regardless of the ruling or opposition parties. The Korean political system itself is structured to induce more resources to be invested in image management than performance. Short terms, frequent elections, and the media's sensational reporting practices make politicians focus on immediate topicality rather than long-term performance. The actual effects of a policy can only be evaluated after a few years, but political viability is determined every moment by public opinion polls and media reports.

In addition, South Korea's party system is often swayed by factional logic, personal connections, and intra-party factional relationships rather than individual ability. Even if talented individuals with policy expertise enter politics, there are practical constraints that require them to spend time expressing support or opposition according to party lines or engaging in activities for factional interests. The problem is that this type of political consumption is gradually weakening Korean democracy. Politicians settle for fandom politics instead of responsible performance, and the public relies on emotional trust instead of realistic verification. This seriously undermines the core principle of democracy: 'checks and balances'. In a democratic system, the role of voters should be critical monitoring and evaluation, not cheering. However, in fandom politics, any criticism of the supported target is considered betrayal, which ultimately weakens the politician's sense of responsibility. If a politician acts only with awareness of his or her supporters, there is a greater risk of becoming entrenched in the interests of a particular group rather than the interests of society as a whole. Furthermore, this polarized political culture undermines social integration. Differences in political views soon turn into personal conflicts, and dialogue and compromise with the other party become impossible. This seriously threatens other core values of democracy: 'tolerance' and 'pluralism'.

In the end, there's an irony where we lament the absence of capable politicians, but a political culture that verifies and evaluates competence doesn't take root. To solve this, changes in several directions are needed.

First, the media and civil society must create a culture that focuses on evaluating politicians based on concrete policy achievements and expertise, rather than image or eloquence. To this end, a system for tracking and analyzing the long-term effects of policies is needed, and citizens also need to develop the ability to learn and discuss complex policy issues.

Second, more attention should be paid to improving institutions and systems rather than excessive focus on individual politicians. It is more important to build a system in which checks and balances are achieved through transparent and predictable systems, rather than politics that rely on individual morality or charisma.

Third, it is also necessary to cultivate the ability of citizens to critically consume information through media literacy education. It is important to recognize the situation of being exposed only to information biased by algorithms and to develop a habit of actively seeking information from various perspectives.

The question we should not ask is, "Is he on our side?" but "What has he actually done, and what can he do in the future?" The excessive myths and blind accusations surrounding Cho Kuk and Choi Kang-wook are merely a mirror reflecting the immaturity of Korean politics. The real problem is that the public does not look directly at the mirror and still clings to images and slogans. The maturity of democracy depends not on waiting for the perfect politician, but on the ability of citizens to properly check and evaluate imperfect politicians. For Korean democracy to take a leap forward, the way we consume politics must fundamentally change. Instead of finding heroes, we should improve the system; instead of forming fandoms, we should strengthen checks and balances; and a culture that prioritizes rational judgment over emotional sympathy should be established. Only then will we be able to achieve true democratic maturity.