뉴욕 컬럼

Yoo Si-min, who gave you the monopoly on interpretive power? No one. You have merely declared that you have occupied that position yourself for a long time. In the public discourse of the democratic and progressive camp, you have always stood as an 'interpreter,' and you have made it so that your interpretations were accepted as truth. However, the reality of those interpretations was closer to a monopoly on interpretation than a sharing of knowledge. The analogies and diagnoses that came from your mouth became slogans of incitement, and those slogans, in turn, became a knife that divided the camp from within. You have repeated this structure for decades.

You claim to have presented your logic in the so-called democratic progressive camp. However, the actual effect of that logic has always been closer to incitement and the destruction of the camp. The method of first defining colleagues within the camp rather than enemies outside, and then packaging that definition with moral superiority. This method was not significantly different during the Kim Dae-jung era, the Roh Moo-hyun era, and now the Lee Jae-myung administration.

Ahead of the 1997 presidential election, you concluded that Kim Dae-jung's chances of winning were close to zero, and instead wrote that Cho Soon should be put forward. In a 1999 Dong-A Ilbo column, you stated that public support for the president had hit rock bottom, and that the ruling party had taken down its signboard just two years after experiencing the joy of a horizontal transfer of power. You also chastised the president for not listening to the voices of intellectuals who warned against the 'curtain of human relations' that blinded the president. It is said that you later apologized for that criticism to Mrs. Lee Hee-ho in Donggyo-dong. However, that apology could not undo the remnants of interpretation you had already sown. The sharpness that should have been directed at the dictatorship and conservatism outside the camp was, in fact, wielded more easily and more often against those in power within the same camp.

The same pattern continued during the Roh Moo-hyun administration. You defended Roh Moo-hyun's grand coalition plan, saying, “If the commander says charge, shouldn't we go, even if it's not this mountain?” It sounded like words of loyalty, but that loyalty was selective. Your voice grew louder not in moments of unity that the camp needed, but in moments of division where you could seize interpretive control. While using Roh Moo-hyun as symbolic capital, you always tried to keep the ultimate authority of interpretation surrounding that symbol close to you. As revealed in the 1980 statement dispute with Shim Jae-chul, past wounds were recalled when needed, and you tried to hold the interpretive rights to that recall as well.

However, it was different when facing the actual opponent. In the 'prosecutorial surveillance' dispute that continued from 2019 to 2020, you repeatedly stated, specifically targeting Han Dong-hoon, that he had looked into the Roh Moo-hyun Foundation's accounts. Through Alileo and radio, that suspicion became public conviction. But the suspicion was not true. In January 2021, you posted an article on the foundation's website, stating, 'I judge that the suspicion was not true,' and politely apologized to the prosecutorial officials. You admitted to having caused suspicion of surveillance with an unproven allegation. Even after that apology, Han Dong-hoon's side said they had 'already suffered great damage from false instigation' and would consider necessary measures. Ultimately, the defamation conviction was upheld. A fine of 5 million won. Jin Joong-kwon said at the time, 'If you have any shame, apologize and reflect. I cannot understand the attitude of a person who inflicts pain on others and then asks the other party to apologize first.'

Aren't you ashamed of how you cowered before Han Dong-hoon during the Yoon Suk-yeol administration? You pour harsh words and criticism on your own camp, but when facing opponents like the conservatives and prosecutorial power, you only back down after legal pressure mounts. That's not courage; it's calculation. Interpretive power is harsh on the weak and suddenly cautious with the strong. This asymmetry shows how hollow your pretense of being an intellectual is.

The same play is being repeated in the current Lee Jae-myung administration. In June 2026, you said the president's confidence was excessive. You said that the core supporters wanted an expansion, but the president tried to redevelop. You said that 'vulgar demolition specialists' were deployed to the critical public sphere to attack the normal cells of the democratic reform camp. You even used the analogy that the ruling party was suffering from an autoimmune disease, where immune cells attack their own cells instead of external bacteria. Although it was a veiled criticism of the derogatory terms and attacks directed at pro-Roh and pro-Moon factions, the actual effect was clear: branding the expansion of the government in its first year as betrayal, and new interpreters as mercenaries. Prime Minister Kim Min-seok's statement that 'criticizing the president with excessive language and attitude can shake the entire faction' was because his remarks were not simply harsh criticism, but were interpreted as a declaration of war that would fracture the faction.

In September, he went a step further. Regarding the president's explanation of prosecutorial reform, he said, 'It is completely different from the prosecutorial reform we envisioned, the Democratic Party's position, and what we called our pledges,' and 'We have deceived the public until now.' This statement prompted the Blue House to express regret for the first time and even consider legal action, calling it a distortion of facts. You would say that this criticism became freer after leaving the Roh Moo-hyun Foundation. However, that freedom always points in the same direction: dissecting the weaknesses of his own ruling faction with the most provocative sentences, and allowing those sentences to spread through YouTube and fandom.

함돈균을 비롯한 일부 평론가들의 평가가 중요한 이유가 여기에 있다. 함돈균은 당신의 ‘후단협’ 발언을 평론의 관점에서도 “비열했다”가 적절한 표현이라고 했다. 공격 대상의 아킬레스건을 맥락 없이 끌어오는 행위, 논리의 겉모습은 매끈하지만, 어조와 무의식이 가치를 갉아먹는 비평. 그는 당신을 아주 비열한 형태의 비판을 하는 평론가로 규정했다. 지식의 유통망을 특정 채널에 독점시켜 대중의 정신세계를 그 안으로만 흐르게 한다는 지적도 같은 맥락이다. 해석 권력은 설득이 아니라 세뇌에 가깝게 작동한다. 우호 세력을 당신의 비유 체계 안으로 끌어들이고, 그 비유를 거부하는 사람은 ‘철거 전문’, ‘촉법 평론가’, ‘자가면역의 원인’이 된다. 반대자는 논쟁의 상대가 아니라 병리적 존재가 된다. 그것이 당신이 진영 안에서 목소리를 키워 온 방식이다.

A self-proclaimed progressive intellectual. Well, what would a real intellectual say if they saw you? An intellectual assumes their interpretation can be wrong and applies the same standard even in the face of power. You are the opposite. Your interpretation is always yours, and the length of your standard changes depending on the opponent. You call young debaters and new supporters within your camp vulgar and crude, and belatedly post an apology in the face of prosecutorial power. You accuse Kim Dae-jung of being surrounded by sycophants and Lee Jae-myung of deceiving the public. The common thread in all those sentences is one thing: that you must still be at the center of the stage.

Writer Yoo Si-min, you are merely an attention-seeker who just wants to engage in politics, be recognized by the public, and have the public enthusiastically respond to your voice. The writer who writes books, the chairman who led the foundation, and the commentator on YouTube – only the names of their professions were different, but the core of their desire is the same. To become the sole interpreter, monopolize the interpretation of the times, and wish for applause for that interpretation. When that desire comes out clothed in the language of progress, people mistake it for knowledge. However, knowledge becomes propaganda the moment it is monopolized, and propaganda, when repeated, undermines the camp from within.

Who gave you the monopoly on interpretation? No one. You seized it yourself, and you've been tearing down your own side to maintain that position. What's shameful isn't that fact, but your face, still believing that this is the duty of an intellectual.