Controversy grows in Democratic Party over Kim Min-seok's 'Shincheonji interference' claim… criticism of a reshaped 'pro-Lee vs. anti-Lee' framework

He said that while he once thought the claim that '20s and 30s voting rights should be restricted' was absurd and wrong, looking at the Democratic Party's current situation makes him think that claim needs re-evaluation. He expressed mixed feelings, reflecting on his own past experience whenever political participation by people in their 20s and 30s comes up.

He said that although he was sued and reported by a former president, the People Power Party and a sitting lawmaker, the Democratic Party regarded him as a troublemaker and kept its distance. Watching the party now say it will listen to the voices of people in their 20s and 30s, he said, 'it makes my stomach turn.' He argued the party must show sincere reflection and change on the issue of people in their 20s and 30s, rather than a superficial approach.

He warned that this approach could become a weakness easily exploited by attackers. When the party says it will listen to young people, he said, accepting their views could draw criticism for embracing extreme opinions, while not accepting them could draw accusations of hypocrisy. He stressed that the goal should be genuinely understanding and reflecting their voices, not treating them merely as a means to win votes.

The argument warns against dismissing young men's political leanings simply as far-right, and stresses that their discontent stems from disappointment with the Democratic Party.

He questioned whether it is appropriate to use a particular label based on such a small sample, and pointed out that not all men in their 20s reject the Democratic Party. His remarks are read as a warning against hastily generalizing the complex political leanings of a particular generation.

Former lawmaker Choi Min-hee said that in the convention, people who had never before appeared in the party's 'New Lee Jae-myung' current have come forward to support a particular candidate, and even Taegeukgi (the national flag) has appeared, creating an embarrassing situation. This reflects concern that unconditional defense of one's own side and attacks on opponents are spreading, eroding the minimum courtesy and common sense once upheld within the Democratic Party.

He argued that sorting people into 'pro-Lee' if they support Kim and 'anti-Lee' if they don't weakens Kim's own presence. He questioned Kim's move to make writer Yu Si-min and Park Si-young targets of criticism in order to build this frame.

He said he could not understand why a party leadership candidate would be at odds with Yu Si-min or Park Si-young during the convention. This is read as criticism that Kim is using confrontation with specific figures to rally supporters, rather than presenting his own policies or vision.

Commentator Hong Sa-hoon noted that Shincheonji came up again in this debate, pointing out that the matter remains a hotly contested controversy. This connects to criticism that the convention, rather than being a contest of policies, is losing its substance as it gets caught up in controversies such as claims of outside interference.

However, this explanation has drawn criticism for failing to present concrete evidence, further fueling the controversy. Critics say that making a claim that could be damaging in an important party election, relying on a subjective 'hunch' and unidentified 'tip-offs' rather than objective grounds, can undermine trust in his leadership.

She said the nuance of his remarks is shifting, such as when he named three people, Kim Eo-joon, Park Si-young and Choi Min-hee, and claimed they had been worried about the Shincheonji issue. She criticized a leader whose words are unclear as unsuitable, saying such a leader could throw the party into confusion.

He also stressed that the tip-offs themselves are not objective and argued that a responsible leader should present clearer, verifiable evidence.

Former lawmaker Choi Min-hee said interference in the party leadership election by a specific religious group such as Shincheonji is practically impossible. Only party members who have paid party dues for six months or more can vote in the leadership election, so it is very difficult to recruit large numbers of members in a short period to interfere in the election. She explained that while the National Election Committee's delegate pool has no dues requirement and could be easier to infiltrate, the party leadership election is structurally different, expressing skepticism toward Kim Min-seok's 'Shincheonji interference' claim.

She added that she heard the same view from several reporters in phone calls, and that not a single reporter said it was not Kim Min-seok. This suggests the controversy over the message's content is moving toward holding Kim directly responsible. Choi said the message may have been sent with a specific intent, and described an atmosphere forming in which Kim is being asked for an explanation. The Telegram message to Lee Hyun-joo has emerged as a key issue near the end of the convention, deepening confrontation among candidates. Choi's claim is expected to weigh heavily on Kim.

Meanwhile, Jung Chung-rae called Kim's actions a betrayal and went on the offensive. This shows that differing interpretations of past political conduct are being used as material for attacks among candidates in the present convention.

The theory holds that people do not cry because they are sad, but become sad because they cry. Likewise, even if someone is not anti-Lee, if people around them keep labeling them anti-Lee, they will eventually come to see themselves that way. The framing, it was warned, deepens division within the party, marginalizes certain members, and ultimately weakens the cohesion of the party as a whole.

One side argues that critical support strengthened the government's bargaining power. Because critics existed, the Zaytun unit's overseas deployment was set as a support unit rather than a combat unit, and harmful clauses in the Korea-US FTA negotiations could be improved. In other words, healthy internal criticism played a positive role in improving the quality of policy. The other side, however, argues that such critical support eroded the government's approval ratings and burdened state affairs. That is, excessive criticism weakened the government's momentum and amplified unnecessary controversy. The debate raises a fundamental question about how the Democratic Party should strike a balance between criticism and support within a party. It is analyzed as a past case that may connect to today's 'pro-Lee/anti-Lee' conflict within the party, showing the need to find a wise approach for the party's unity and development.

The core supporters who have long backed the party have shared joy and sorrow through the political path running from Kim Dae-jung to Roh Moo-hyun to Moon Jae-in, protecting the party together. They waved yellow balloons for President Roh Moo-hyun and applauded President Moon Jae-in's policy of 'do whatever you want,' defending the party's values. However, as the new current represented by 'New Lee Jae-myung' appears to deny their past and values, the existing core supporters feel betrayal and hurt. This conflict goes beyond a clash between individuals and raises fundamental questions about the party's identity and the historical experience of its core supporters. In other words, longtime Democratic supporters are facing deep confusion as the leaders they supported and built seem to disavow their past, and this is emerging as a key challenge that will shape the party's future.