馬英九總統在內政上，633跳票，油電雙漲，不當處理洪仲秋案和太陽花學運案等，失政連連，民眾抱怨不斷，民調滿意度有一度掉到不足9%。自從他被逼辭去黨主席後，民調稍微有點起色，但也只徘徊在15%上下。他的失敗在於缺乏政治信仰和判斷力，政策往往被大財團駕馭，貧窮百姓和弱勢團體得不到照顧，造成社會的貧富差距和世代相互剝奪感的加劇。這些議題我們早有著墨，不再在此重複，這裡談談他近來被嚴厲批評的國際和兩岸關係。

在國際關係上，馬英九首次被英國《經濟學人》雜誌以不雅名稱稱呼。該雜誌用「Ma the Bumbler」為題，描述他施政的失敗，台灣媒體和民眾曾一時譁然。一般人把這題目翻譯為「笨拙的馬總統」或「笨蛋馬總統」，但也可翻成「裝模作樣的馬總統」或「經常出錯的馬總統」。不管是哪種翻譯都能很真實的反映馬總統的作為。繼此之後國際媒體常用來稱呼馬英九的不雅名稱還有魯蛇，無用之人等不計其數。我們驚奇的是當局者迷，旁觀者清，外國人觀察馬英九還比台灣的很多「馬死忠」和「鐵桿藍」要客觀和正確得多。

12月7日美國一場學術研討會，賓州大學歷史系教授林蔚說，馬英九雖然一口漂亮的英語，人也很聰明，人格也沒有問題，但他的頭腦混亂（but his mind is muddled），林蔚指的特別是馬在國際和兩岸關係上的思維。林同時也強調，他聽到蔡英文的演講以及和她對談之後，都讓他印象深刻，認為蔡英文很有智慧，她想帶領台灣往自主國家發展的意志也非常堅決，她就像前英國首相柴契爾夫人是位「鐵娘子」。林蔚認為習近平與其缺乏正當性，和即將卸任的馬英九對談，不如與擁有多數民意支持的蔡英文交談更為務實。

有趣的是這則消息經《自由時報》報導後，台灣駐美代表沈呂巡公開表示嚴重關切。為此林蔚還倉促寫了一封信對外澄清，他求學時代就已認識馬英九，他那些話並沒有對馬英九不敬的意思。馬政府的外交官員心態還停留在滿清時代，以為外交官員可以在極度尊重言論自由的美國，隨便干預學者的主張，真是把台灣的顏面丟到國外。林蔚的澄清信顯然是自己打的字，誤打之處不少，我們將修改幾個字後的原文轉載於後。很重要的是他對台灣成為正常的自由、民主，且被國際社會尊重與接受的國家，表示非常有信心。

馬英九的國際和兩岸政策充滿矛盾，他除了自己有大中國主義思想之外，也想面面討好各方。只因他本性固執守舊，而且好大喜功，結果是討不好任何一方。馬英九的致命傷是頭腦不清不楚，以為只要他承認「一中各自表述」和「九二共識」，便能得到習近平的認可。實際上他無法解決北京和國際社會所承認的一中是「中華人民共和國」的事實，和習近平想要併吞台灣的既定政策。

馬英九在如何滿足台灣藍綠不同主張的人民、中國、美國、日本，和菲律賓、越南、泰國等鄰居國家的利益時，舉棋不定且態度矛盾。馬英九本來熱衷於保釣運動，他認為釣魚台是中華民國的領土，卻因北京說它是中國的領土而主動退卻。面對日本的領土主張和盟邦美國的支持，馬英九也不知如何應對。馬英九模稜兩可的言論深深得罪了鐵桿藍和黃復興黨部，他們都認為馬英九太軟弱，沒有好好捍衛中華民國主權。

近來發生的太平島立場的轉彎，也可看到馬英九缺乏外交的一致性和能耐。他原來規劃本月12日登上太平島，主持南沙太平島的碼頭與機場整建工程完工，以及燈塔點燈的儀式，藉以宣誓我國在南沙的主權，也重申他的「南海和平倡議」。卻因美方透過美在台協會表示關切，以及美方可望公布對台軍售項目，因而馬可能放棄赴南沙宣誓主權的計畫。

馬英九的根本問題在於他沒有堅定的政治信仰，他對台灣的政治前途主張飄忽不定。一個國家領導人必須具有普世價值和主流民意主導的治國信念和政策，顯然這是馬英九所欠缺的。也因此他在兩岸和國際關係的政策都只想四面討好，結果是連一方都討不好。

附：林蔚信件

Dear friends, I hear that a Liberty Times article has caused some concern among friends. Perhaps the best way to address them, with your permission, is to put up a few points on TPF. First anyone who knows me grasps that from the time I first set foot on the island (August, 1971) I have held no aspiration more strongly than that she should one day become a fully free, democratic, respected, and entirely accepted member of the community of nations. I will continue to believe that and advocate that for as long as I have breath. Second anyone who has read my posts here will understand that while I am unswerving in my dedication to freedom and recognition for Taiwan, I often evaluate people and politics there in ways that are not all share. Thus I will go to the mat for the contribution of the soldiers who won at Guningtou, thus saving the island—most of whom gave their lives hundreds or thousands of miles from their homelands in China. I have made the argument that only CKS, with his determination and his powerful American connections, could have lined up D.C. strongly behind a place that informed people then thought was destined soon to fall to a regime they, incredibly, imagined would be better. I have spoken and written about President Ma many many times. He ia a man I have known ever since Harvard forty years ago. I do not doubt for an instant his intelligence, his personal integrity, or his deep commitment to the freedom of the people who elected him. But he faces challenges designed to be impossible. Thus PRC and the US and the world have stipulated Taiwan, cannot be Taiwan, or the Republic of China beside the PRC, nor one of Taiwan and China. Only one door has been left open, labeled «province of the People’s Republic of China—and written into the Chinese Constitution.. People whom one would imagine valued freedom enough to know far better, from Nixon to Kissinger to Carter to Brzezinski to Oksenberg and many others have seemed oddly untroubled by this, which they all must know would be a human rights disaster of unimaginable dimensions., But they seem not as honest as Chas Freeman (no friend of Taiwan) who gave the underlying logic when debating with me at the Council on Foreign Relations a decade ago: «It is okay for the Chinese to live in the People’s Republic of China but he would not want to.» When Chen Suibian defeated the KMT, the Nationalists unwisely looked to China somehow to save them. That was of course pure and ill-judged fantasy. PRC might use them, to be sure, but only as interim tools as her own authority was installed. So is it any surprise that the KMT has slipped badly since she tried to make such an electoral connection with the largest, oldest, and most institutionalized despotism in the world? Ma played the gentleman to Xi but I do not think he forgot China’s clear goal is to absorb Taiwan, or that, as she has shown in Hong Kong, her reassurances and promises are worthless. Therefore I used the English word «muddled» to refer to the ROC’s president. «Muddled» means having no clear explicit plan for dealing with a confusing situation. Unsure, trying first one approach, then another. It does not mean stupid. What it means is that no one—not I, not Ma, not to mention any other Taiwan leader, could possibly have an answer to the riddle: how can you be a free country and a province of China at the same time? Yes one wants «good relations» but not good to the point you lose your nationhood; one wants trade but not dependency, one wants strong defense, but China bitterly opposes it, you want to be able to speak your true name to the world and enter by the front door—all of which China forbids. How to reconcile all this is a problem that as Carl von Clausewitz said of one similar: «would defy the talents of a NEWTON or an EULER.» That said, I truly believe the upcoming election may prove a watershed in Taiwan’s emergence on to the world stage. For Ma I have only friendly sentiments that will not change. Likewise I have great respect for Tsai Ing-wen, whom I have heard speak and with whom I have conversed. More than a decade ago I and my wife from China also met the late Margaret Thatcher, of England, and share a deep admiration for her. Tsai has the intelligence and deep conviction that Mrs. Thatcher had. Whether she also has the steel, only time will tell for sure. But nothing seems more natural than to link these two impressive women and leaders.. Maggie was 54 when she became PM; Tsai is 59. I believe her time has come. I add that I think Peking should welcome her as interlcutor: someone of clear conviction, forthright, honest, and as intelligent and well trained as any leader in the world today. Finally, I see many currents converging in this election, to which everyone in Taiwan has contributed in one way or another: the country has become politically and economically mature and institutionalized. Political disagreements are no longer venomous or perhaps fatal, as in earlier times. But even the reviled CKS, whom many readers of this page abominate, made the not unimportant contribution of keeping the Communists from taking over rule, which would have been worse than a catastrophe —and I think perhaps only he had the necessary background and qualities to do so. But I equally respect the thousands who in those days called for a free Taiwan, and mourn for those many who paid with their lives. Today, more than thirty six years since the era of martial law as ended by Chiang Chi ng-kuo, the last man who had the power to betray the island but instead left its future to its people and to democracy, I sense that a kind of national maturity, has been reached, rare even among the countries of the world., The Taiwan that so many have built will make an unmistakable adult debut, a mid joy for most and abuse and a few. I fear I am no diplomat: I am a professor who speaks his mind when asked, as honestly as he can, and seeks not always successfully to be accurate. One thing every reader should understand, though. I have stood in the corner with those who insist on a free Taiwan since I was just out of my teenage y ears. This fact is far more important than what I say about this or that policial development. Free development is my gravamen. I will never lease that corner. With my warmest good wishes to all.