The Democratic Party of Korea proposed a 35 trillion won ($25 billion) supplementary budget on Feb. 13, with 13 trillion won allocated to providing cash handouts, 250,000 won per person, to the entire population. Previously, on Jan. 31, Democratic Party leader Lee Jae-myung said that if the National Assembly cannot pass the extra budget because of the cash handout plan, the party will scrap the plan altogether. The announcement was seen as Lee attempting to distance himself from what had been criticized as a “populist” election pledge.
Some interpreted this as a move toward economic pragmatism, signaling a shift from distribution-focused policies to a more growth-oriented approach. However, this change in position lasted less than two weeks before he reversed course.
In his New Year’s press conference, Lee implied that he would reassess his basic income policy pledge, claiming that “Creating wealth is more important than redistributing it.” He also hinted at allowing exceptions to the 52-hour workweek for the semiconductor sector. His remarks seemed aimed at appealing to centrist voters, particularly as the Democratic Party’s support among moderates declined in response to the party’s apparent high-handed approach following the martial law incident.
However, when his shift to pragmatism failed to generate support from centrist voters, Lee quickly reverted to his original stance. Instead of winning over skeptical moderates, he alienated his core base, including the party’s hardliners and labor unions, such as the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions. He swiftly pivoted back to familiar rhetoric, reintroducing proposals for a four-day workweek and a “basic society” framework while attaching conditions to the Special Semiconductor Act, effectively backtracking on his recent statements. Lee’s recent actions suggest that his abrupt shifts in stance have nothing to do with actual change of thought but are simply political maneuvers designed to navigate political crises.
Politicians often adjust their rhetoric in response to changing circumstances, but in Lee’s case, the policy flip-flops have been too drastic and frequent. Many were skeptical when he suggested abandoning the cash handout plan, but few expected him to take back that statement so quickly. Lee recently said, “When I said I admired Park Geun-hye, people actually thought I meant it.” His remark underscores a broader concern: what kind of politician is Lee Jae-myung, really?
