[COLUMNIST] The Rise of Reality-Construction in Global Power Politics

IN 2004, journalist Ron Suskind relayed a chilling anecdote in The New York Times Magazine. While speaking with a senior adviser to then-President George W. Bush—widely believed to be Karl Rove—Suskind was told that people like him belonged to the “reality-based community,” defined as those who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” The aide continued: “That’s not the way the world really works anymore… We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”

This quote, once seen as political arrogance, has become a doctrine for a growing number of regimes and movements around the world. In today’s geopolitical landscape, major powers do not merely assert influence through armies or economies—they construct reality itself. From Washington to Beijing, and from social media echo chambers to official propaganda machines, the contest over what is “real” has become one of the defining conflicts of our time.

The Global Wave of Revisionism

In the United States, Donald Trump’s presidency brought Rove’s philosophy to its logical conclusion. Whether disputing the size of his inauguration crowd, minimising the COVID-19 pandemic, or falsely claiming the 2020 election was stolen, Trump repeatedly demonstrated that political power could be maintained—even strengthened—by overriding facts with emotionally compelling narratives.

China has institutionalised reality construction through more centralised methods. Historical narratives are being revised, academic freedoms curtailed, and national memory reshaped to elevate leadership and reinforce Party legitimacy. Dissent is not simply suppressed—it is erased.

Russia has taken this even further. Vladimir Putin’s framing of the Ukraine invasion as a mission to “de-Nazify” Ukraine has been relentlessly pushed through state-controlled media, enabling the Kremlin to justify aggression as liberation.

But what enables these narratives to thrive is not just government control or charisma. It is the infrastructure of modern information itself—specifically, the global influence of social media.

Social Media: The Architects of Alternate Realities

In the past, the tools of narrative control were limited to those who owned printing presses or broadcast towers. Today, they lie in the hands of anyone with a smartphone. Social media platforms have not only accelerated the spread of misinformation—they’ve made it more immersive, emotionally resonant, and resistant to correction.

In the United States, platforms like Truth Social, Facebook, Twitter (now X), and YouTube played central roles in the proliferation of “Stop the Steal” rhetoric. Despite efforts to moderate content, algorithms often rewarded sensationalism over accuracy, amplifying conspiratorial claims that took root in millions of minds. Truth became tribal, and shared reality fractured along partisan lines.

The January 6 Capitol riot was not organised in secret but in plain sight—through Facebook groups, viral TikToks, and incendiary tweets. Social media didn’t just reflect political reality; it helped manufacture one.

In China, the mechanisms are different but no less powerful. Platforms such as WeChat, Douyin (China’s version of TikTok), and Weibo operate within a tightly controlled digital ecosystem. The Great Firewall blocks dissenting narratives from entering the country, while domestic algorithms prioritise Party-sanctioned content. Some events are ghosted out of collective memory, while patriotic myths are elevated.

In both the American and Chinese contexts, the common thread is this: platforms shape perception—and perception shapes power. Disinformation is not a bug—it is a feature of the system.

Why Empirical Data Isn’t Enough

In a world where narrative often trumps data, traditional diplomacy faces a crisis of method. Multilateral negotiations, once based on shared facts—economic reports, environmental data, human rights assessments—are increasingly undermined by a refusal to accept mutually agreed-upon truths.

This divergence makes constructive engagement difficult. Climate agreements falter when some participants question the underlying science. Trade negotiations stall when one party insists on economic “facts” that are politically convenient but analytically false.

What’s more, information warfare is now a core component of statecraft. Discrediting factual evidence is often a deliberate strategy to confuse, delay, or demoralise opposition—both domestically and abroad.

Diplomatic Implications of the “Reality-Construction” Mindset

Understanding this mindset is essential to adapting diplomatic strategy. Empirical correction alone rarely suffices. Leaders who rely on narrative control are not merely misinformed—they are often disinterested in the concept of truth as an objective reference point.

Effective diplomacy now demands emotional intelligence, cultural sensitivity, and rhetorical dexterity. Facts must be embedded within stories that resonate with national identities, historical memories, and political goals.

Soft power strategies—education exchanges, cultural diplomacy, independent media support—must be recalibrated to reach populations caught in curated information environments. Influence now comes not just from what you say, but from how well you understand the other side’s internal logic.

A Way Forward for Middle Powers: Lessons for Malaysia

For countries like Malaysia, navigating this new era of truth manipulation requires strategic clarity and flexibility. Unlike the U.S. or China, Malaysia cannot unilaterally shape global narratives. But it can position itself as a credible, balanced actor in an increasingly polarised world.

First, Malaysia should strengthen its internal information integrity. Independent journalism, critical thinking in education, and digital literacy are not just domestic goods—they are foreign policy assets in a world of narrative warfare.

Second, it must avoid entanglement in binary alignments. Instead of choosing sides in a U.S.-China information war, Malaysia can engage both while promoting transparency, regional cooperation, and a values-based foreign policy rooted in ASEAN consensus.

Third, Malaysia should invest in its own narrative. By articulating a clear, principled identity on issues like trade, climate change, and digital governance, it can cultivate soft power and moral authority that resonates beyond its borders.

Conclusion

The rise of “reality construction” is not a temporary distortion—it is a new condition of international life. The internet has not made truth obsolete, but it has made it more vulnerable. Social media platforms are no longer neutral conduits of information; they are battlegrounds of legitimacy, shaping not just what people believe but what they can believe.

Karl Rove’s infamous remark—that empires “create their own reality”—has become a global template. The challenge for the rest of the world is not to imitate, but to innovate: to build resilient institutions, smarter diplomacy, and public spheres where truth can still contend—and sometimes, prevail.

Dr Helmy Haja Mydin is chairman of Social & Economic Research Initiative (seri.my)

** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.