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
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS