Cho Gab-je: "This Cabinet Reshuffle? A Pragmatic Move on a Different Level from Jang Dong-hyeok... Jang Has Only Proven Incompetence for a Year"

-Bringing back Park Geun-hye? Summoning incompetent conservatives who will not help in the general election
-"Rally around leadership"? Are they telling us to unite for 'Yoon Again'?
-Emphasizing only far-right coalitions when it is time to move toward the future
-Jang Dong-hyeok establishing conservative identity? Irrecoverable fake conservatism
-Party-member centered? Is this the Communist Party... The owners of the party are the people, not party members
-Vowing to become the eldest brother of conservatives? A blend of 'far-right + colonial bureaucrats'
-Achievements during one year in office... Proving the incompetence of 'Yoon Suk-yeol, Hwang Kyo-ahn, and Jang Dong-hyeok'
-Lee's second cabinet reshuffle: A multi-purpose reshuffle on a completely different level from Jang Dong-hyeok
-Pragmatic and suited to restoring political power, even if not good for the public
-Lee Jun-seok resigns taking responsibility for election defeat... Will turn a crisis into an opportunity

■ Broadcast: SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show (FM 103.5 MHz 7:00 – 9:00 AM)
■ Date: Monday, August 31, 2026
■ Host: Attorney Kim Tae-hyun
■ Guest: Cho Gab-je, Representative of Chogabje.com

[Kim Tae-hyun] : We examine the political landscape through conservative eyes. Joining us is Cho Gab-je, representative of Chogabje.com. Hello.

[Cho Gab-je] : Hello.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Today, let us first look into the People Power Party retreat that took place last week and Representative Jang Dong-hyeok's one-year anniversary in office, followed by yesterday's cabinet reshuffle by the ruling bloc. People Power Party Floor Leader Jeong Jeom-sik invited former President Park Geun-hye to the retreat, and it is said that he is paying a courtesy visit to former President Lee Myung-bak today. Visiting former President Lee Myung-bak at his private residence is something routine, but former President Park Geun-hye made a full-fledged public appearance by coming all the way from Daegu to the retreat. What impact will summoning former presidents have on the People Power Party? Will it help, or will it not help at all?

[Cho Gab-je] : If you were to invite someone to a retreat, it would be appropriate to invite a keynote speaker who contemplates how to win the upcoming two elections in 2028 and 2030 and offers good ideas. But isn't she someone who failed? There are two presidents who failed without excuse: Park Geun-hye and Yoon Suk-yeol. Losing power while holding immense authority is incompetence. Incompetent conservatism is not true conservatism. Conservatism must unconditionally be competent. That is an absolute condition. Even if she made a rare public appearance, she could have delivered a good message.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Even though former President Park Geun-hye was a failed and impeached president by your standards, could she have delivered a good message?

[Cho Gab-je] : Exactly. For instance, she could have said, "This is my last time attending such an event, so I want to offer some advice." She only needed to mention about three points.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : What points?

[Cho Gab-je] : First, become competent. Second, cross the river of Yoon Suk-yeol's martial law. And most importantly, please do not fall into conspiracy theories about election fraud. Only then can you win. If she had spoken to that extent, wouldn't it have generated significant buzz and received applause from the public? But what she said, boiled down simply, was: "Let us unite around Jang Dong-hyeok's leadership faction."

[Kim Tae-hyun] : That they must unite in solidarity around the leadership.

[Cho Gab-je] : Exactly. In current terms, saying "let's unite" means uniting as a 'Yoon Again' faction and uniting as an election-fraud conspiracy faction, doesn't it?

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Do you view this as a remark empowering Representative Jang Dong-hyeok?

[Cho Gab-je] : Formally speaking, yes, but because there is so much cynicism toward it, from the voters' perspective, it is a negative. In other words, she made remarks that are backward-looking and divisive. When you say unite, around what percentage must you unite? You should unite around at least 50%, but uniting around Jang Dong-hyeok now means uniting around barely 10%. Currently, about 27 to 28% of people identify as conservative. Half of that is around 10%. Can you win an election by uniting around 10%?

[Kim Tae-hyun] : You cannot win. What do you think about this? Among the remarks former President Park made, the most talked-about was, "The more difficult the times, the more we must unite in solidarity around the leadership." That was one, and another was: "There is a proverb that a tiger's stripes are on the outside, but a human's stripes are on the inside." She then added, "A person's character is not revealed on the outside, and what matters in politics is trust." Somehow, this reminds me of the summer of 2015, when she said, "Please judge the politics of betrayal." That exact moment came to my mind.

[Cho Gab-je] : It does connect to that, but a politician should not speak so ambiguously. If a great thinker or someone holding absolute power speaks ambiguously like that, it makes subordinates interpret it this way and that. But does former President Park Geun-hye possess such power now? That is a literacy issue.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Then how should this be interpreted?

[Cho Gab-je] : There is no need to interpret it.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Really? Is it correct that it directly targeted the politics of betrayal?

[Cho Gab-je] : No, I am saying there is no need to interpret it. Isn't it a waste of time to bicker over such things?

[Kim Tae-hyun] : So you are saying that because these are words from a former president who governed a decade ago and holds no power today, we do not need to engage in a battle of interpretation?

[Cho Gab-je] : Yes.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Understood. Many interpreted this as targeting former Floor Leader Yoo Seong-min. In a recent interview, former Representative Yoo said, "I have wanted to meet former President Park Geun-hye, but there has been no answer for a year," and "What particular reason is there to meet Lawmaker Yoo Young-ha?" Do you think the two should meet and resolve their issues?

[Cho Gab-je] : What use is clinging to stories from 10 years ago in resolving today's politics? South Korea's conservatism has been labeled as incompetent because of Park Geun-hye and Yoon Suk-yeol, and it has now become non-mainstream in Korean society. It is no longer mainstream. Yet they misjudge themselves as mainstream. To regain power as a non-mainstream faction, you must form a coalition at all costs, right?

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Yes.

[Cho Gab-je] : To form a coalition, you must broaden your reach, but Jang Dong-hyeok's path is not about coalition; it is about rallying the far-right together to do something. So winning the general election is not in Representative Jang Dong-hyeok's mind. His goal is simply maintaining party hegemony even if they lose the general election, isn't it?

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Yes.

[Cho Gab-je] : To break that, figures like Yoo Seong-min, Oh Se-hoon, Han Dong-hoon, or Lee Jun-seok need to create a vision for governance. "We will be reborn as competent conservatives. To achieve this, we will pursue this, this, and this"—they need to present around 10 clear agenda items. They should persuade people with that, rather than visiting figures from the past to resolve old grudges.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Bickering over whether someone supported or opposed impeachment.

[Cho Gab-je] : Doing so makes them even more backward-looking... Even moving toward the future leaves us with very little time.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : You mean now is not the time for such talk. Understood. This enters the realm of speculation, but do you think former President Park Geun-hye attended the retreat out of her own will? Do you think she was compelled by external pressure? Or was it half her own will and half external pressure?

[Cho Gab-je] : Lately, there has suddenly been considerable interest in the special relationship between Yoo Young-ha and Park Geun-hye.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Lawmaker Yoo Young-ha did support former President Park Geun-hye extensively during her difficult times.

[Cho Gab-je] : Yesterday, or just before that... right after it, he posted something on Facebook.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Lawmaker Yoo Young-ha did?

[Cho Gab-je] : I was astonished when I read it.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Why?

[Cho Gab-je] : The core was an oath of loyalty to former President Park Geun-hye, and he wrote, "Those who tormented former President Park Geun-hye will be punished even after crossing the river." Looking at the context, "crossing the river" meant the afterlife. He posted malicious words, a curse, saying he would retaliate even in death.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Against those who made things difficult for former President Park Geun-hye?

[Cho Gab-je] : Yes. Many comments were left there that were so critical of former President Park Geun-hye that I cannot even introduce them here. The consistent sentiment was, "What kind of special relationship do the two actually have?" Why should former President Park Geun-hye be exploited to invite such talk? Her attendance there means she was used. Because of this, even those who want to remember former President Park Geun-hye fondly or hold nostalgia for her are being driven away.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Understood. Representative Jang Dong-hyeok marked his first year in office. Let us talk about this. At a press conference, he stated, "I will open the era of party member sovereignty, Party Member Sovereignty 2.0." He mentioned the direct election of local party chapter heads by party members and unveiled a plan to establish a 'Conservative Identity Establishment Committee.' How do you evaluate this?

[Cho Gab-je] : In my view, it is fake conservatism, so how can fake conservatism establish any conservative identity? Since these are the words of a Yoon Suk-yeol follower, does it mean they want to unify under the spirit of Yoon Suk-yeol from now on? Furthermore, the term 'party member sovereignty' is something found in communist parties.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Is that so?

[Cho Gab-je] : Of course. Because being party-member-centered can be tolerated. But giving sovereignty to party members? South Korea operates under a popular sovereignty system. Therefore, that directly denies popular sovereignty. Shouting for party member sovereignty, which is only valid under communist regimes like North Korea, China, or the Soviet Union where the party directs the state, and having no direct criticism within the party against it—if that is the kind of political party it is, I see it as beyond revival.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : But thinking about it very simply, party members are the masters of the party, hence party member sovereignty. Is that wrong?

[Cho Gab-je] : It is wrong. The masters of a party are the people. The moment a party claims its owners are the party members, it ceases to be a liberal democratic party.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : It turns into the Workers' Party of North Korea?

[Cho Gab-je] : Exactly. On top of that, he used the word 'sovereignty.' Sovereignty is exclusive, isn't it? The moment you use the word sovereignty, it assumes absolute authority. Doesn't that challenge the most fundamental constitutional principle that sovereignty emanates from the people? Moreover, if you implement party member sovereignty, who are those party members? By my calculation, roughly half of the People Power Party members are a mix of election-fraud conspiracy theorists, dual-party registrants, and certain religious groups. Will a party created with them holding sovereignty win or lose elections?

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Understood. You are saying sovereignty can only be applied to the people?

[Cho Gab-je] : Exactly.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Only the people can possess sovereignty; party members cannot have sovereignty.

[Cho Gab-je] : Otherwise, would we use terms like corporate employee sovereignty?

[Kim Tae-hyun] : We wouldn't. Understood. While discussing solidarity, Representative Jang said, "I will become the eldest brother of conservatism." Who do you see as his target for solidarity? It certainly does not appear to be Lawmaker Han Dong-hoon or former Representative Lee Jun-seok.

[Cho Gab-je] : The far-right and those colonial-bureaucrat types who blindly follow them and jump on the bandwagon just to secure a post. The People Power Party today is a combination of far-right figures and colonial-bureaucrat lawmakers. There is nowhere for him to build solidarity.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Nowhere?

[Cho Gab-je] : Is there anyone who would design their political future by aligning with the far-right today?

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Still, he served for one year. When you think about it, isn't there anything he did well?

[Cho Gab-je] : Rather than doing something well, there is something he succeeded at.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : What is that?

[Cho Gab-je] : He succeeded in demonstrating just how incompetent the Yoon Suk-yeol–Hwang Kyo-ahn–Jang Dong-hyeok faction truly is.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : In terms of conservatism being reborn...

[Cho Gab-je] : I believe he clearly taught sober-minded citizens that unless conservatism is reborn and transforms into a people-centered party, it will never regain power no matter what.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Understood. Let us talk about the cabinet reshuffle. Yesterday, the President carried out a medium-scale cabinet reshuffle. The concept seems somewhat different from the initial cabinet formation. How did you view it?

[Cho Gab-je] : When you compare the pathetic retreat held by the People Power Party with yesterday's cabinet reshuffle by President Lee Jae-myung, there is a clear difference in caliber. Yesterday's reshuffle was a multi-purpose reshuffle. It was a very pragmatic reshuffle reflecting the determination to recover this administration because it had fallen into a crisis. It is easy to criticize. While it is easy to criticize, for a ruling party whose top priority must be maintaining power, it was... what should I call it?

[Kim Tae-hyun] : An appropriate masterstroke?

[Cho Gab-je] : Should we call it a masterstroke? In a way, I consider it an outcome of admirable calculation, a move into which extensive calculation was invested.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Why do you see it that way?

[Cho Gab-je] : First of all, regarding the figure who faced public condemnation...

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Where? The Ministry of National Defense?

[Cho Gab-je] : He dismissed the Defense Minister, and after criticizing the Korea Military Academy for having staged coups on three occasions, he appointed an Army General—and one from the Korea Military Academy at that—as the Defense Minister. That signifies an acceptance of public sentiment.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Yes.

[Cho Gab-je] : And while replacing ministers to hold them accountable for failures in areas like real estate, he did not replace the person truly responsible. He did not replace Chief of Staff for Policy Kim Yong-beom. That protects the President himself to avoid creating an image that damages presidential authority. Furthermore, for Minister of Justice, he nominated someone who supported dropping indictments.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Yes.

[Cho Gab-je] : On top of that, by nominating individuals from the Rebuilding Korea Party and the Basic Income Party, he demonstrated an intention to solidify the leftist camp first and then pursue centrist expansion. If there are multi-purpose dams, I would evaluate this as a multi-purpose personnel reshuffle.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Which specific appointment did you consider well-executed?

[Cho Gab-je] : I am not saying any specific appointment was good. The essence of politics is maintaining power and restoring approval ratings. When a president's approval rating drops, nothing works. I am saying he made appointments that fit that objective.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : As a means to the ends of power retention and boosting approval ratings, this cabinet reshuffle was well-chosen.

[Cho Gab-je] : However, from the perspective of the public and the national interest, there are a few essential things he failed to do.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : What are they?

[Cho Gab-je] : Minister of Unification Chung Dong-young should be replaced. Replacing only the Defense Minister is insufficient. To restore the South Korea-U.S. alliance, replacing Unification Minister Chung Dong-young—who is quite reckless and widely distrusted by the United States—is necessary to cope with security crises. That is what I thought.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Understood. We have one minute left. Was former Representative Lee Jun-seok's resignation a good decision? How should he proceed going forward?

[Cho Gab-je] : Because he took responsibility. Ultimately, wasn't it taking responsibility for the election defeat?

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Yes.

[Cho Gab-je] : Among party leaders who contested the election, Representative Jang Dong-hyeok is the only one holding on even after losing. Also, there seems to have been such an issue within the party. Establishing a foothold in southern Gyeonggi Province was a very crucial choice. I believe three regional bases are necessary to rebuild conservatism: establishing a regional base for the Reform Party or conservatives in southern Gyeonggi Province, maintaining the capital region guarded by Mayor Oh Se-hoon, and building one in the Busan area through Han Dong-hoon.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : How do you foresee former Representative Lee Jun-seok's future? We have 20 seconds left.

[Cho Gab-je] : He has youth, capability, and vision, so I believe he will turn this crisis into an opportunity.

[Kim Tae-hyun] : Understood. We will conclude here. That was Cho Gab-je, representative of Chogabje.com. Thank you.

The copyright of this interview material belongs to SBS Radio.
When publishing the full text or quoting this interview in reports,
please state the channel name and the exact program name as shown below.

[SBS Kim Tae-hyun's Political Show]


※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.