Long-term National Visions Allow for Optimism and Difficult Changes
"Make America Great" and the "China Dream" are both toxic concepts. As the US and China slug it out in a trade war that is shaking up the way the entire world does business, the defining slogans of Trump and Xi are putting on a nationalistic, patriotic spin on blatantly prioritizing the interests of their own countries, citizens, and businesses. The success of the slogans has made the trade war not just about economic logic; it is now a battle of emotions, glory, and perceptions of national greatness, summed up in neat little shorthands that hide how international exchanges are being sacrificed.
But the two slogans are also incredibly powerful politically as easy-to-understand visions for the countries' future. Both slogans allow the domestic audience to look forward to an idealized future in which governments leverage national power to enrich citizens, with more jobs, incomes, and future growth than other, weaker countries. Irksome to outsiders, the slogans nevertheless encourage citizens to think optimistically, comforted by the belief that there is a government that is working toward a set of concrete goals for the betterment of the nation as a whole and a majority of the people, using all resources politicians can wield.
The centripetal, almost emotional power of such slogans, at least in the American and Chinese cases, are clearly on display during the ongoing trade war. As both sides hit one another with increasingly stringent economic measures, their citizens, although grumbling in private about the damages to personal livelihoods brought by the trade war are largely rallying behind their governments rather than openly calling for compromises that can hasten the end of the trade war. The reaction is at least partially caused by the presence of a long-term vision put forth by their government, which transcend short-term pains of the trade war.
Yet, despite clear benefits, in terms of optimism and unity, provided by such visionary slogans, coming up with a good one is not so easy. One that is too steeped in ideal and deviates from reality on the ground is likely to be dismissed by a cynical populace as lofty propaganda that does nothing for the welfare of the country or the people. One that is too grounded in truth and focused on the specifics, however, only depresses a populace that wants not just to know about a string of problems and their imperfect solutions, but an overall picture that goes beyond issues of today.
The latter is precisely what is leading to people in many countries to express pessimism about their countries' and their own future. The likes of Japan and African states talk about the need to encourage growth with reforms and promoting investments and entrepreneurship but remain mum on the topic of exactly what their countries should be like if there is more economic vibrancy. Combine that with unaddressed social issues, like the declining population in rural Japan and nagging youth unemployment in urban Africa, and it is easy to see how people are lost, confused, and blind when thinking about what the future looks like.
What is more, pushing through unpopular and divisive policies are much more difficult when there is no concrete, unified vision for the future. Trump can push through high tariffs and outright bans on Chinese economic interests, which hurt millions of Americans doing business with China, precisely because such actions are widely understood by the general public as a long-term strategy to make sure America maintains its economic supremacy and national security by overcoming a Chinese challenge. Without that commonly shared vision, it is difficult to see individual businessmen willingly give up their livelihoods.
To put another way, divisive policies that hurt individual interests of some can only pass when individuals are convinced of the greater good as presented in the clear future vision. In Japan, for instance, public resistance to immigration will remain overwhelming as long as the government fails to spell out a vision for a powerful Japan that needs to borrow foreign labor to achieve greater wealth for all citizens. When citizens are devoid of a bigger vision, they only see short-term detriments. And because divisive policies are resisted, the country remains stagnant, making the proposal of change-inducing long-term visions even more difficult.
Extricating such stagnancy requires a certain boldness from national leaders, especially in democratic states. People argue that autocracies that efficiently and centrally control all resources are better at marshaling a long-term vision, but ultimately democratic politicians are better placed to come up with visionary slogans. After all, politicians are elected by presenting how they can change the country for the better. The changes are not simply solving some technical issues but have to be bigger, longer in view to stimulate the electorate's enthusiasm. In places like Japan and democratic Africa, the system calls for visionary leaders. It is ultimately the leaders who need to step up to the plate.
The centripetal, almost emotional power of such slogans, at least in the American and Chinese cases, are clearly on display during the ongoing trade war. As both sides hit one another with increasingly stringent economic measures, their citizens, although grumbling in private about the damages to personal livelihoods brought by the trade war are largely rallying behind their governments rather than openly calling for compromises that can hasten the end of the trade war. The reaction is at least partially caused by the presence of a long-term vision put forth by their government, which transcend short-term pains of the trade war.
Yet, despite clear benefits, in terms of optimism and unity, provided by such visionary slogans, coming up with a good one is not so easy. One that is too steeped in ideal and deviates from reality on the ground is likely to be dismissed by a cynical populace as lofty propaganda that does nothing for the welfare of the country or the people. One that is too grounded in truth and focused on the specifics, however, only depresses a populace that wants not just to know about a string of problems and their imperfect solutions, but an overall picture that goes beyond issues of today.
The latter is precisely what is leading to people in many countries to express pessimism about their countries' and their own future. The likes of Japan and African states talk about the need to encourage growth with reforms and promoting investments and entrepreneurship but remain mum on the topic of exactly what their countries should be like if there is more economic vibrancy. Combine that with unaddressed social issues, like the declining population in rural Japan and nagging youth unemployment in urban Africa, and it is easy to see how people are lost, confused, and blind when thinking about what the future looks like.
What is more, pushing through unpopular and divisive policies are much more difficult when there is no concrete, unified vision for the future. Trump can push through high tariffs and outright bans on Chinese economic interests, which hurt millions of Americans doing business with China, precisely because such actions are widely understood by the general public as a long-term strategy to make sure America maintains its economic supremacy and national security by overcoming a Chinese challenge. Without that commonly shared vision, it is difficult to see individual businessmen willingly give up their livelihoods.
To put another way, divisive policies that hurt individual interests of some can only pass when individuals are convinced of the greater good as presented in the clear future vision. In Japan, for instance, public resistance to immigration will remain overwhelming as long as the government fails to spell out a vision for a powerful Japan that needs to borrow foreign labor to achieve greater wealth for all citizens. When citizens are devoid of a bigger vision, they only see short-term detriments. And because divisive policies are resisted, the country remains stagnant, making the proposal of change-inducing long-term visions even more difficult.
Extricating such stagnancy requires a certain boldness from national leaders, especially in democratic states. People argue that autocracies that efficiently and centrally control all resources are better at marshaling a long-term vision, but ultimately democratic politicians are better placed to come up with visionary slogans. After all, politicians are elected by presenting how they can change the country for the better. The changes are not simply solving some technical issues but have to be bigger, longer in view to stimulate the electorate's enthusiasm. In places like Japan and democratic Africa, the system calls for visionary leaders. It is ultimately the leaders who need to step up to the plate.
Comments
Post a Comment