The art of success in politics, economics and even war is to tell compelling stories. Data, formal speeches, slide decks, clever debating points and tools of close analysis all have their place — but the trump card in persuasion and winning hearts and minds is a good story.
To win is to have owned the best narrative. Get the message wrong, and it turns into an unbelievable, losing fairy tale.
Thus, one of the reasons the Russians will ultimately fail in Ukraine is as much their weak story as any military frailties, while the Ukrainian account in response is so strong. Few, even inside Russia, believe Russian President Vladimir Putin’s story that Ukraine was always and immutably Russian, justifying such death and destruction to assimilate it into its “natural” motherland.
It is an evil fable. Ukraine’s counternarrative — that it is fighting for its sovereignty and freedom before an unprovoked aggressor — is genuinely more credible.
So when last week there was claim and counterclaim about the drones that attacked the Kremlin in an alleged assassination attempt on Putin, the bar of neutral opinion sided with the more successful storyteller — Ukraine.
A successful narrative has to have roots in reality and involve struggle against obstacles — the participants so gaining wisdom. Even economists, the lovers of data, spreadsheets and charts above any other, are increasingly recognizing the value and importance of narratives.
Yale University’s Nobel Prize-winning professor Robert Shiller has even written a book about it, Narrative Economics.
He writes that throughout history, human beings have found themselves telling similar stories about new technologies threatening or creating jobs, about economies needing more conspicuous consumers or more frugal housewives or insisting that the integrity of money needs to be anchored in something independent of government, because governments cannot be trusted.
Economists need to learn to go with the flow.
Economic and political stories overlap and feed off one another. Since the late 1970s, the political right has been the most adept at borrowing from familiar and homespun narratives to build a nearly unassailable right-wing economic common sense.
Wealth creation is about individual entrepreneurs taking risks, the most admirable activity of all. They flourish best when taxes are low and governments are small, keeping tight control of what they spend like any frugal household — and certainly not debasing the coinage by printing money.
Former US president Ronald Reagan and former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher told this story — neither former US presidents Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama nor former British prime minister Tony Blair managed successfully to challenge it.
However, US President Joe Biden is pulling off what they failed to do: constructing a new and successful story to succeed the right’s. It is why even at 80 he is so politically important, and his decision to run again — despite the risks — is so justified.
He promises, like story-changing Reagan and former US president Franklin Roosevelt before him, to be the author of an era-defining narrative. His key verb is “to build.” It is an end to the claims of trickle-down economics, he says, which claims ultimately to benefit all. Instead, “we will build from the bottom up and middle out, not the top down.”
When he hears the word climate, he likes to say he hears the word jobs.
A recent speech by US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan defined the encompassing nature of Biden’s rupture with the old story — and the ambition of the new. It was simply breathtaking.
First, it was emblematic that the story was told by a national security adviser: economic, foreign and security policy now going hand in hand.
The US had messed up in the previous 40 years, Sullivan said. It had bought the narrative that free markets at home and abroad would spread capital most effectively, creating prosperity and bringing the world together. The story had turned into a malevolent fable. What it meant in practice was “the privileging of finance over fundamental economic growth, which was a mistake.”
Too much free trade had undermined sectors that delivered middle-class jobs, which instead had been hollowed out, with supply chains and entire industries moving overseas and creating disillusion, disaffection and undermining democracy — a not very veiled reference to former US president Donald Trump.
Russia and China had seized the opportunity to subsidize their industries and, rather than making peace, were aggressively challenging the US. The old story, instead of creating order, had created its opposite.
The tax cuts and business deregulation preached by the right-wing supply-siders have failed totally, Sullivan said. The new Biden approach was to deploy government spending on a vast scale to trigger investment in new and green technologies, which would bring supply chains and industries back to the US, create middle-class jobs and enhance security and democracy.
It was working, he said. Large-scale investment in semiconductors and green, clean technologies had soared by 20-fold since 2019, implying a US$3.5 trillion boost to investment in the decade ahead. There would be carefully structured trade deals with the EU and Pacific countries. Britain was not mentioned once. The aim was not to confront China, but to become less dependent on it.
In the end, we all rise or fall together, he said.
This is an emphatic new story — and it will have ramifications in the UK. The Conservative Party is in trouble because its Brexit, tax-cut, end-the-nanny-state stories are aging, failing and turning into disliked, unbelieved fairy tales amid so much economic and social wreckage.
The banking crisis in the US — surging again after Trump’s round of deregulation — is another reminder that the world of dropping regulatory “burdens” and expanding free ports has run its course.
After a drubbing in the local elections, some shaken Conservative politicians called for a return to “real conservatism” — but what does that mean?
A conference of National Conservatism in London on Monday next week purports to answer the question. Its story, judging by a joint article by two of its speakers, Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Frost, is to reaffirm the philosophy that the US national security adviser declares is wrong and defunct. It does not rise to any of today’s challenges. Instead, it causes them.
Into this vacant space the Labour Party should step with its nascent story. Following Sullivan, there is a highly developed one to hand — to build for a better shared future. It might be shamelessly copying Biden, but copying winners is no bad strategy for wannabe successful storytellers.
Will Hutton is an Observer columnist
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS