"I Am Conservative" Final Battle: Fierce Debate to Select Next-Generation Conservative Leaders

Judge Lee Jin-suk emphasized the power of persuasion as the most crucial criterion for the final judging of the 'I Am Conservative' program. She stated that the goal is to select a warrior and champion who can most persuasively disseminate the ideology of the liberal camp to the public. This implies that practical communication skills and public influence, rather than mere theoretical knowledge, will be key evaluation factors.

Judge Kim Seong-won emphasized a clear understanding of conservative values and the ability to apply them to various issues. He stated that he would evaluate how accurately participants comprehend core conservative values and, furthermore, how they apply those values to real-world problems to persuasively communicate them to the public. This is an evaluation criterion that demands both the depth and practicality of conservative ideology.

Participant Park Min-young pointed out that the current political sphere is dominated by experts, bureaucrats, and legal professionals, leading to a lack of public empathy. He emphasized empathy for the lives of the public and problem-solving abilities as essential qualities for political experts. Park Min-young argued for the need for 'hybrid politicians' who can turn the weaknesses of both ruling and opposition parties into strengths, explaining that this involves moving beyond traditional political roles to present new political leadership suited for a new era.

Participant Park Min-young strongly criticized the current 'imperialistic floor leader system' of the People Power Party and called for its reform. He pointed out that this system undermines the authority of the party leader and the president, leading to inefficiencies in party operations. Park Min-young emphasized that transforming into a member-centered mass party is the way for the People Power Party to stably maintain the president's leadership, even if it comes to power in the future.

Participant Park Sang-hyun proposed the establishment of a networking platform where young assembly members of the People Power Party can understand each other's expertise and collaborate. He explained that through this platform, members could form research groups based on their respective expertise and present policy papers, thereby strengthening their practical policy capabilities. This was presented as a measure to enhance the capabilities of young politicians and support efficient legislative activities.

Participant Park Sang-hyun pledged to introduce an LM (large language model)-based AI system within the party, proposing the concept of an 'AI party.' He stated that the party's platform, party rules, and past data would be trained into the AI, allowing party members to explore policy directions and ask questions through this AI system. Park Sang-hyun emphasized that to prevent AI hallucination (generation of false information), the AI would be restricted to answering only within the party's official data. He also explained that a system would be established to analyze member agenda data and report it to the supreme council every week. This was noted as an innovative measure to strengthen party member sovereignty.

Participant Lee Yun-kyu argued that to reconstruct conservatism, the core strategy must be to become a 'youth unification party' that gains the support of the 2030 generation. He criticized the current People Power Party for still appearing as an entrenched party centered on national assembly members, despite advocating for 'MJC (Moderates, Seoul metropolitan area, Youth).' Lee Yun-kyu emphasized that to gain the support of the younger generation, the party must fundamentally reform its structure to be member-centric.

Participant Lee Yun-kyu argued that while acknowledging the wrongdoings during former President Chun Doo-hwan's tenure, the economic development of that period should be objectively evaluated as an achievement. He mentioned that favorable external conditions, such as the three low booms, existed during the Chun Doo-hwan government, leading to significant economic development. Lee Yun-kyu stated that he was not distorting the essence of the May 18 Democratization Movement and expressed the need to analyze historical facts dispassionately.

Participant Choi Jae-il diagnosed the crisis of conservatism as stemming from the loss of the ability to judge for oneself. He pointed out that the current conservative camp, while criticizing the Democratic Party, is bogged down in partisanship, prioritizing 'Are they on our side?' Choi Jae-il emphasized that conservatism must be based on responsibility, logic, and rationality, and that the declaration 'I am conservative' should be a declaration of a standard to be stricter with oneself than with anyone else, advocating for the values of freedom and logical rationality.

Participant Choi Jae-il named Karl Popper as a conservative thinker and presented his concept of 'falsifiability' as an important value that conservatives should learn. He mentioned domestic politicians such as Rhee Syng-man, Park Chung-hee, and Lee Jun-seok but stated that among scholars, he likes Karl Popper the most. Choi Jae-il emphasized that for conservatism to possess logical rationality, it must have an open attitude that any assertion can be falsified.

Participant Park Min-young cited 'procedural fairness' as one of the important conservative values. He emphasized that regardless of the outcome, if the process was not right, it should be considered important. In this regard, Park Min-young criticized the Reform Party's way of responding to the fraudulent election issue, stating that it overlooked procedural fairness, a core conservative value.

Participant Park Min-young strongly criticized many politicians who were nominated under the Han Dong-hoon system for abandoning the value of freedom and individualistically destroying organizational rules. He diagnosed that the People Power Party is adrift, having completely lost its ability for self-correction. Park Min-young pointed out that the top-down party line decisions lack democratic procedures and mentioned the widespread loss of conservative identity and self-destructive politics since the impeachment.

Participant Park Sang-hyun criticized the current situation of the People Power Party, defining it as a 'power struggle' rather than a normal leadership competition through a party convention. He pointed out that within the party, members' opinions are not properly reflected in key decision-making processes, such as the election of district chapter heads. Park Sang-hyun emphasized the urgent need for internal democracy where party member sovereignty functions properly, advocating for internal party reform.

Participant Park Sang-hyun criticized the government's attitude of only demanding premium increases or benefit reductions from the public whenever national pension financial problems arise. He argued that discussions should first focus on what efforts the government has made to secure fiscal soundness. Park Sang-hyun emphasized that measures such as restructuring unnecessary government projects and allocating the saved funds to the national pension should be considered, urging active government efforts beyond premium increases and income replacement rate adjustments.

Participant Choi Jae-il proposed the 'separation of new and old pensions' to secure the financial soundness of the National Pension and enhance intergenerational equity. He pointed out that the current pension system causes intergenerational unfairness and argued for fundamental structural reform. Choi Jae-il emphasized the need for in-depth discussions on solutions for unresolved debts, stressing the urgency of pension reform.

The moderator raised concerns about security 불안 (insecurity) due to reduced ROK-US joint exercises and asked participants for their pros and cons on South Korea's self-reliant nuclear armament. Park Sang-hyun expressed skepticism about nuclear armament, emphasizing strengthening the ROK-US alliance and diplomatic solutions. In contrast, Park Min-young, Lee Yun-kyu, and Choi Jae-il advocated for more active alternatives, such as self-reliant nuclear armament or nuclear sharing, engaging in a fierce debate.

Participant Park Sang-hyun argued that the realistic feasibility of self-reliant nuclear armament is almost nil, criticizing it as nonsensical. He expressed concern that discussions on self-reliant nuclear armament could lead to losing a negotiation card with President Trump. Park Sang-hyun emphasized that the nuclear armament issue should be resolved through diplomatic channels, pointing out the possibility of undermining the ROK-US alliance.

Participant Lee Yun-kyu cited President Rhee Syng-man's release of anti-communist POWs to assert the legitimacy of discussing self-reliant nuclear armament. He explained that President Rhee Syng-man undertook the release of anti-communist POWs, which was a very burdensome direction for the United States, to overcome the 'Korea Passing' situation at the time. Lee Yun-kyu evaluated that this decisive action resulted in strengthening the ROK-US alliance at the time, emphasizing that sometimes bold diplomatic strategies are necessary.

Participant Park Sang-hyun criticized the waste of taxpayer money and the lack of a public oversight system, citing examples of overseas trips by the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairperson of the National Election Commission. Regarding the explanation that accompanying the Speaker's spouse on overseas trips is customary, he stated that he could not shake off doubts about what official duties the spouse, who is not a public official, performed. Park Sang-hyun pointed out the lack of legal basis for spouse accompaniment on trips and emphasized that such practices should be improved.

Participant Park Min-young stated that he personally holds the belief that 'procedure is more important.' In contrast, the opposing debater emphasized consequential rationality and the importance of gaining power, revealing a difference in perspective on the criteria for political judgment. This led to a debate on what should be prioritized—process or outcome—in evaluating the legitimacy of political actions.

Participant Choi Jae-il defined electoral fraud as 'electoral fraud if there are procedural flaws,' stating his definition of electoral fraud. He criticized Representative Lee Jun-seok's logic of judging electoral fraud based on the presence or absence of organized external intervention. Choi Jae-il emphasized that to ensure election fairness, there must be no problems in all procedural aspects.

Participant Lee Yun-kyu advocated for a realistic integration theory for party modernization and AI innovation. He pointed out that parties do not change easily and emphasized the need to seek new changes through integration. In contrast, the opposing debater expressed skepticism about integration, emphasizing the lack of empirical evidence for merger and the potential for negative effects in elections.

Judge Heo Hyun-jun expanded the perspective on electoral fraud, arguing that in this election, in addition to the National Election Commission's (NEC) computer and voting manipulation issues, there was 'widespread government-controlled election by the ruling power.' He emphasized the seriousness of the ruling power's intervention in elections and acts intended to cause specific candidates to lose, raising a structural issue beyond mere technical errors. This remark is interpreted as calling for deeper discussion on the fairness of elections.