1/ As progressives develop of bifocal view of politics--trashing Trump and promoting their favorite candidate for 2020, I just want to pass along some meta-political ideas drawn from @ajitmaan3 Ajit Maan's book, Narrative Warfare. Why? Because I think that independent of any
2/ candidate, the best candidate will be the one that develops, maintains, and has amplified the best narrative, and, a narrative that either counters or envelope's Trump's narrative. Now, narrative divorced from principles, policies, and programs are just words. @ajitmaan3 work
3/ focuses on terrorism, but any student of politics and war will know that the principles of war apply to politics. In my view, you cannot be a serious student of politics or movements without understanding Sun Tzu, Liddell Hart's indirect strategy, of Johy Boyd's moral
4/ conflict. Similarly, I think an understanding of Narrative Warfare is integral to politics. You can go back to RAND's Netwar to find that "the best narrative wins." So, here goes. What is narrative? "Narrative operates at the most fundamental levels of identity construction
5/ and meaning-making" (p. 7). "Information consists of facts...Narratives tell the meaning of facts. This is narrative warfare" (p. 10). The offense and defense of Narrative Warfare? On offense, you need an "operationalized narratives that tell the story of who we are are and
6/ why are doing what we are doing....and frame events to our advantage" (p. 13). On defense, you must understand your opponent's narrative in order either to counter it or envelope it. To destabilize your opponent's narrative, you challenge the assumptions of its framing and
7/ bring in the information left out. Maan writes that Western narratives of Events 1, 2, & 3 imply causality where there may be no causality. Thus, bringing in information may "disrupt the causal implication of the narrative" (p. 51). What may be trickier, is Maan's preferred
8/ envelopment strategy. In this instance, you "TELL your own narrative in a way that re-frames the opposition's frame of reference and offers a bigger, better, stronger, smarter alternative way of understanding, of identifying, of acting" (p. 51). Now, while this is not Maan's
9/ political view, Maan wrote about fear and mobilizing that fear. What I mean here is that Trump is a master at raising fear in terms of identity. Thus, I am suggesting understanding Maan's apolitical view but apply it to 2020: "If you want to influence an audience...you tell a
10/ strategic narrative that tells them who they are and how to make sense of the events they are experiencing. This is particularly effective when your audience's identity has been threatened or compromised in some way, and is, therefore, vulnerable. One can even create an
11/ artificial threat so that people are more vulnerable to influence, and then tell a story about who is to blame for the threat and what the audience can do about it" (p. 49). Again, while @ajitmaan3 wrote that, my interpretation is this: Trump does this everyday: "You are
12/ losing jobs, it is Mexican rapists, Muslim terrorists, Democrats/liberals/atheists/seculars/Jews to blame." A winning progressive campaign, IMHO, will have an enveloping- or counter-narrative. So, IMHO, if your favorite Democratic candidate is not expressing a strong,
13/ coherent narrative that undermines a well known Trump narrative, that candidate is not even remotely serious. But, let's go back. "Narratives do not rely upon truth-value for their success....Truth is irrelevant to poetry. What *is* relevant is that it strikes a chord in
14/ experience. The same is true of narrative" (pp. 16-17). Echoing Cialdini's principle that the "messenger is the message," @ajitmaan3 wrote, "Credibility, not truth, is an important aspect of narrative influence. In order to assure credibility, the *narrator* needs to be
15/ viewed as credible" (p. 16), Not Maan but me, I think this is where major fights will occur between progressives and their candidates. Who is credible and authentic? Sources of cash and votes will matter. But, IMHO, there ought to be clear, non-candidate driven criteria on
16/ some of these matters. Additionally, Maan wrote, "The narrative itself, in order to be received as credible, must reflect the experiences of the audience" (pp. 16-17). IMHO, if you look at income inequality and stagnating wages, and speak of "America is already great," this
17/ message is not going to resonate with your target audience. So, your favorite candidate must be authentic and credible. Now, let's turn to a more substantive examination. @ajitmaan3 uses ISIS to explain her Narrative Warfare but the essential point is that the narrative is
18/ not the title of your narrative, but all the things that support it. Maan writes: "'Islam is under attack' is the *title* of their narrative. The narrative itself is comprised of the myriad messages and activities that support the title" (p. 19). And, "ISIS has been winning
19/ the narrative battle because they put the narrative first and then design operations on the ground to deliver the message" (p. 18). Now, there is a lot more in @ajitmaan3 short book, Narrative Warfare, and more in her larger, more expensive books. But, the point I will make
20/ is this. The announcement speech of every Democratic candidate ought to be judged by the Narrative Warfare criteria (there are more criteria, believe me). If your favorite candidate is weak or ambiguous at the foundational start, reconsider. I can already see in my Twitter
21/ feed the we need a woman of color, a man of color, a white woman, but never a white man. The identity imperative needs to be resisted. We need to look at all our candidates in terms of Narrative Warfare. Yes, WOC, MOC, WW, might be authentic and credible. But, narrative?
