In Taiwan, a national elite socialized to measure the behavior of others (but not its own behavior) against extremely high standards of morality finds itself offended by the apparently immoral behavior of local electoral politicians. With reference to similar situations in other developing countries, this article describes how the attitudes of Taiwan's national elite toward the political morality of others developed and why the electoral politicians act in a manner offensive to the elite's attitudes. As a postscript, the article discusses why the national elite has checked its desire to do away with Taiwan's offensive fledgling electoral system and expanded its scope instead.

It used to be said by a certain learned professor opposed to departure from old and familiar paths, “Gentlemen, all progress is change, but not all change is progress.”

In every department of human affairs, in every quarter of the civilized world, the contrast between conditions in the late eighties and the present time is amazing—not conditions only but the difference in attitudes, in beliefs, in human relations. We may well ask ourselves, Whither? Certainly it is incumbent upon us to consider the character of these changes—whether they are making for progress—and what steps we are taking or can take to meet them. I ask you to consider with me two aspects of this question, one affecting industrial and the other international relations. In each case the proposals heretofore offered to meet the situation appear to fall into one of two categories, the first mechanistic, the second educative; the first, an attempt to meet a new situation by introducing new devices of control; the second by a process of education to modify or change men's attitude and belief.

We are now in the midst of the third period of radical party readjustment to new governmental conditions, and I am requested to forecast the probable effects upon party organization. The readjustment which we are now experiencing is clearly in response to a popular demand. In the two earlier instances there were likewise elements which were adapted to popular needs.

Even the legislative caucus, in State and nation, which was the first form of organization for the two great national parties, met an obvious need. The voters were already divided into two main groups of opposing opinions and party names had been assumed. Some means were required to give effect to party opinion. The voters were widely distributed. Communication was slow and difficult. At each State capital, and at the national capital, there were already gathered law makers chosen by the people of each locality. It was in entire harmony with the needs of the period that these representatives should assume and exercise the added function of making party nominations. It was, however, only for federal, State, and district offices that the legislative caucus made nominations. For the smaller areas—towns, cities, and counties—other methods were employed.

The legislative caucus was always subject to criticism. Its action was viewed by many as an unauthorized assumption of power. Only in the absence of other more direct organs for giving effect to party opinion was it acceptable. Out of the experience of towns, cities and counties a more direct nominating process was gradually developed for the wider areas. It was customary to choose delegates in local party caucus to meet in party convention, to formulate party policy, and to nominate candidates. In time, and in accordance with the popular wish, the delegate convention system was so extended as to wholly displace the legislative caucus. With the advent of the convention there has come into existence a vast array of party machinery, in the form of permanent party committees.