If you were never a fan of George W Bush, the person you should blame for his time in office is political advisor Mark McKinnon.
The media Svengali behind both of Bush’s political campaigns, McKinnon professed that the secret to turning an unpromising candidate into an election winner was simple: tell a good story.
McKinnon’s thesis was this: in a world where we are overwhelmed by messaging, we have an innate ability to see stories in the noise. We look out for protagonists, are intrigued by their mission, gripped by the enemy challenges they face and hanker for the resolution of their story.
If you give a campaign this narrative shape, you make it easier for voters to process the information so it has meaning and power. In his own words: “Successful campaigns tell a story. Good stories win. Campaigns without a story lose.”
So what of the political narratives behind the 2016 primaries? Who has the clearest, strongest narrative?
Let’s start with Donald Trump. As a hero, he’s the bombastic tycoon so rich
that he refuses campaign finance from lobbyists and flies around in a Boeing 757 stamped with his name. The fact that he can’t be bought makes this billionaire a man of the people – an extraordinary twist.
His mission? To make America great again. The enemy? The corrosive effect of Washington insiders, illegal immigrants and foreign foes given free rein.
The resolution: the US returns to a golden age – invincible, wealthy and respected.
As a story, it’s clear (and mad as hell), appealing to angry voters keen to give comfortable elites a poke in the body politic. The angrier he gets, the better he seems to do. But his story’s divisiveness has limits; his ugly story has antagonised whole swathes of the electorate – and it’s getting uglier.
What’s interesting is that Trump and Bernie Sanders, his polar opposite, share certain narrative strands. Sanders too sees himself as a man of the people and an outsider who can’t be bought, because he’s too virtuous. The enemy: the cheating billionaire class who don’t share the fruits of a rigged economy they control. The resolution: a fairer America, where the 99% take its fair share – and the 1% are made to play fair.
What about Hillary Clinton? As a hero she suffers from being seen as a Washington player in the pocket of Wall Street and lobbyists. Her story is somewhat less clear. At the moment, she seems to be spinning counter narratives: “love trumps hate”; “let’s build bridges, not walls”; “lets make America whole again”.
She’s competent, not crass. An experienced stateswoman, not a dangerous novice.
A unifying matriarch, not a divisive demagogue. These counter-narratives show that she can stand up to Trump, but they don’t spell out a clear story of her own.
But there are bright glimmers; Clinton is the life-long crusader who’s out to “make herstory” as America’s first female president and bring the US together. It has echoes of Obama 2008, without his shiny newness.
From a narrative perspective, Trump’s story is so strongly outlined that he will most likely romp to victory at the Republican convention. But if he runs with the same divisive narrative at the presidential elections, he will come a cropper.
Clinton is likely to win the Democratic nomination on the strength of counter-narrative alone. But Sanders also has a compelling story that is likely to give Clinton a run for her money. Whoever wins the primaries, history (or herstory) will be made
and the 2016 presidential elections are going to be the most interesting and divisive in a generation.
My prediction? The best story, well told, will win.
Ed Woodcock is director of narrative at Aesop Agency
This advertisement feature is paid for by the Marketing Agencies Association, which supports the Guardian Media & Tech Network’s Agencies hub.
