Through a dialogue between Takashi Tsutsumi and Hiroyuki Kubo published in Hanada, this article examines terrestrial television’s criticism of the Abe administration, unproductive Diet deliberations, the excessive demands placed on Japan’s prime minister, the opposition’s ability to govern, national independence and self-defense, and Japan’s passive attitude symbolized by the expression “with COVID-19.”

September 4, 2020.
The following is an excerpt from a serialized dialogue feature between Takashi Tsutsumi and Hiroyuki Kubo, published in a 2020 issue of the monthly magazine Hanada.
In their discussion, the two men spoke frankly about terrestrial commercial television’s coverage of the Abe administration, opposition parties’ conduct during Diet deliberations, the amount of time the prime minister was required to attend the Diet, the two-party system, national independence and self-defense, and Japan’s attitude as symbolized by the expression “with COVID-19.”
Until August six years earlier, when I was still a subscriber to the Asahi Shimbun, I had never even heard the names of either of these two men.
People around the world would surely also regard that as an appalling story.
The preceding portion is omitted.

Text

Kubo:
The antenna for the cable television at my house broke, so I have been watching terrestrial commercial television instead, and it is dreadful.
It is filled with comedian-like commentators who are critical of Abe, and whenever anything happens, they find some way to denounce him.
Commenting becomes easy if they make every discussion end in criticism of Abe.
There is an old rakugo story saying that if you use “and yet, how I long for money” as the closing line, you can put virtually anything before it and at least make it look like a senryu poem.
This is exactly the same.
If people are exposed to nothing but broadcasts like that, then naturally his approval rating will fall.
Tsutsumi:
In an NHK opinion poll asking whether an extraordinary session of the Diet should be convened promptly, 72 percent answered that it should.
But even if the Diet were convened, it would produce nothing but worthless questions.
While the world outside the Diet was in turmoil because of the Wuhan virus, they repeatedly asked the same questions about Moritomo, Kake, and the cherry-blossom viewing party, like a worn-out record.
In the end, Tetsuro Fukuyama of the Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan even said, “And, incidentally, I would also like to ask about COVID-19.”
It was too absurd to listen to.
Editorial Department:
Moreover, whenever something happens, they refuse to participate in deliberations.
Kubo:
In its August 5 edition, the Sankei Shimbun published an easy-to-understand table based on a National Diet Library research report compiling the number of days on which the prime ministers and presidents of major countries attended their legislatures.
The table made it immediately apparent how much more time Japan’s prime minister wastes—and how much more physical energy he expends—in Diet deliberations than the leaders of other major countries.
In particular, for budget committee sessions attended by the prime minister and cabinet ministers and broadcast on television, the final figures were zero days for the United States, one day for Britain, two days for France, and 65 days for Japan, while Germany’s figure was not disclosed.
Furthermore, these sessions have become opportunities for opposition parties to appeal to the public through performances attacking Abe, while the essential deliberation of legislation is neglected.
They have become utterly unproductive forums.
Today, negotiations between nations are often concluded through summit diplomacy, making the prime minister all the busier.
In other words, if the prime minister is confined to Diet deliberations for extended periods, it may seriously damage Japan’s national interests.
An intermediate portion is omitted.

The Dubious Nature of “With COVID-19”

Tsutsumi:
I have said this before, but I think the best arrangement would be for Faction A and Faction B to alternate in power within the broad framework of the Liberal Democratic Party, which upholds both democracy and a free-market economy.
The 1955 system, under which this occurred, worked reasonably well.
Kubo:
However, because that one-party-dominant system reached an impasse and ceased to function properly, the transfer of power to the Democratic Party of Japan took place.
The electoral system was then changed to the present parallel system of single-member constituencies and proportional representation in order to establish the long-desired two-party system.
Nevertheless, the parties other than the LDP remain divided into a collection of small parties.
When one looks at the disgraceful merger drama involving Edano, Tamaki, and the others, it is impossible to believe that the opposition will be reorganized into a second major party with the ability to govern in place of the LDP, thereby bringing about another transfer of power.
If that is the case, should we not choose a path toward two conservative major parties that would compete with one another to realize an independent Japan capable of defending itself?
Japan should move beyond the condition in which it has continually depended entirely upon the United States, deepen the Japan–U.S. alliance, and share Western values while refusing to allow either Trump or Xi Jinping to do whatever they please.
This is not merely a problem concerning the Abe administration.
It is a problem that concerns the fate of Japan as a nation.
An intermediate portion is omitted.
In any event, Japan is passive far too often.
The expression “with COVID-19” is itself an example.
I could understand if, after trying every possible measure, we eventually arrived at a situation of living with COVID-19.
But our response should begin with the determination to crush the virus.
What are we doing if, from the very beginning, we speak of being “with” it as though we intend to accommodate it?
The Asahi Shimbun published a May 6 editorial titled “Is the Metaphor of a ‘War’ Against COVID-19 Appropriate?”
The expression “with COVID-19” carries the same odor.
In other words, it is tainted by the pseudo-pacifist thinking associated with Japan’s postwar Constitution.
Carl Schmitt’s friend–enemy theory is correct both in dealing with China and in dealing with COVID-19.
In short, there is no will to fight.
Tsutsumi:
The Wuhan virus and the Chinese Communist Party regime are, so to speak, enemies of Japan.
Whether it is “with COVID-19” or “with China,” what is unacceptable remains unacceptable.