Will reality mug us in 2026? + Should you write with ChatGPT? + Albo’s middle magic

Hi

Happy New Year! I hope everyone had a lovely Christmas and holiday period.

In this edition, I look at the risks of ignoring the new realities confronting society, the downside of using ChatGPT to write, and how Albo has brilliantly framed the (former!) Coalition using the rhetorical middle.

Thanks.

Ben

Will reality keep mugging us in 2026?

When reading Hated by All the Right People, the biography of controversial conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, I was reminded of the ‘godfather of neoconservatism’ Irving Kristol’s pithy definition of neocons as “a liberal who was mugged by reality”.

I thought about this line when I looked ahead to 2026 and contemplated possible big themes that would define the communications context.

There will be many, including AI, geopolitical instability, populism, etc.

But one of the most important themes this year is that we will continue to be mugged by reality – reality will continue to diverge from the expectations we have built based on existing assumptions, aspirations and ideologies.

Leaders and communicators will need to work on their “contextual intelligence” to accept this reality and help themselves and their organisations adapt.

Bitten on the arse

Seeing reality has become increasingly difficult. Broadly, we have been shifting away from reason and evidence, towards the primacy of feelings (emotivism), pseudo-scientific ideologies, and commercial and political interests.

This, of course, has been exacerbated by noise from social media and now artificial intelligence.

Unfortunately, reality has an unhealthy habit of biting us on the arse. A few examples:

· Inflation

We want to believe that Government can spend big to solve everyone’s problems, but eventually it shows up in inflation, as it is in Australia, where inflation has reared its head again, triggering what is likely to be a series of interest rate rises.

· Rising nationalism

We want to believe that we can all live in multicultural harmony and at the same time run a big immigration program, but the reality is that social cohesion starts to fracture, immense pressure is applied to housing and infrastructure, and the general population’s inherent patriotism becomes triggered, creating a nationalist backlash. This has happened around the world, and Australia is no different; witness One Nation surging in the polls as a result.

· Surging energy costs

We might believe that climate change is a major problem and requires a complete reengineering of our energy systems and economy, but the reality is that it comes with a big price tag – soaring energy costs for businesses and families.

I could go on.

The lure of denial

We can, of course, just deny reality.

That’s what many people, organisations and governments will choose to do.

Jim Chalmers denies he’s responsible in any way for rising inflation and rates!

That denial will include shooting the messenger and trying to control the speech and language of people, many of whom are simply pointing out reality.

But then reality will keep biting us on the arse.

Increasing contextual intelligence

Smart leaders and communicators, however, will endeavour to become more grounded in this new reality.

That means increasing our “contextual intelligence”: an awareness of the truth of the environment in which we are operating.

There are a few elements to this:

1. Becoming more externally focused on the dynamics in broader society.

2. Being mindful of the gap between what is truly happening (reality) and one’s aspirations, visions and ideologies.

3. Recognising what you can change/influence to close that gap.

4. Recognising what you can’t change.

5. Aligning your organisation more closely with the reality that can’t be changed.

Another important way is to seek diverse opinions.

Bursting the bubble

One of the major roles of communicators in organisations is to be constantly tracking, reporting and informing others about what is happening in the outside world – what’s happening with reality.

Reality is rapidly changing – perhaps in many ways that we and our organisations don’t like.

But we will need to ensure we’re not stuck in a bubble, and that we begin to accept reality as it is, and adapt accordingly, otherwise reality will continue mugging us.

Should you use ChatGPT to write?

A friend recently said they were making good progress on their book. But they noted that ChatGPT is “such a good co-writer”.

In a roundabout way, they were asking me if that was problematic. Perhaps their real question was: Should I use ChatGPT to write?

I’m surprisingly agnostic on this topic.

I can see the value of using AI/ChatGPT in many contexts, particularly in business.

Whether we like it or not, most business communication is not about excellence, but clarity and efficiency.

So AI is fine for things like:

· Mass market copywriting

· Summary documents

· Pitch documents

· Editing, spellcheck

· Background research

But then most of us – most of my clients and almost everyone who receives this newsletter – are playing a higher game.

We are in the influence, credibility, trust and thinking game; the thought leadership game.

Yes, clarity and efficiency are important; but so are nuance, leadership, personality, connection, creativity and distinctiveness.

When you use ChatGPT to write, you are effectively undermining all of those things.

You are commoditising yourself. When you use ChatGPT to write, anyone using the tool can do what you do, so you become obsolete, irrelevant.

My answer to my friend’s question – should I use ChatGPT to write – was it depends on what type of book you want to produce.

If it’s a summary-type book, almost a textbook, it’s fine.

But if you want it to be ground-breaking, be distinctive, have your personality shine through – to be a true thought leader – then no, under no circumstances should you be using ChatGPT to write.

***

Perhaps the biggest reason not to use ChatGPT to write is that good writing = clear thinking.

Writing forces you to sit down, use your intellect, and deeply understand your topic.

When we hand over writing to ChatGPT, we hand over our thinking.

In a chaotic, emotion-driven world, however, reason (thinking and understanding) will become increasingly important, not just for our careers, but for our sanity and virtue.

As investor, writer and philosopher, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, says: “The rarest (and most valuable) thing on this planet: a clear mind.”

How Albo and Labor use the ‘middle’ to destroy the Coalition

In an edition last year, I noted that the Labor Party was playing three-dimensional chess while the Coalition (RIP!) was playing a simple game of snap.

One thing Labor does brilliantly is use the middle ground to frame issues and its opposition rhetorically.

When it comes to framing, there are broadly three dimensions:

· Extreme

· Moderate

· Status quo

Albo’s game is for Labor – and their legislation – to be perceived by voters as moderate.

This worked a treat in the last election when voters overwhelmingly viewed Albo as the “safe” middle-of-the-road option, while Dutton was perceived as “risky”.

Labor achieves this by constantly framing the Liberals as more extreme and right wing than they are. In the last election, they successfully framed Dutton as similar to Trump.

They are ramping that up again, with Jim Chalmers now labelling the Liberals and Nationals as ‘far right’, in a bid to link them with One Nation (Chalmers talks about Australia’s “three far-right parties”).

But Labor also uses the middle in much more subtle ways.

Even when Albo is on the back foot, he uses the three dimensions.

After the Bondi massacre, Albo maintained the status quo (effectively do little to nothing) position of not holding a Royal Commission.

When he finally conceded to pressure and agreed to one, people were so relieved that his design of a Royal Commission – particularly the appointment of Virginia Bell, with whom the Jewish community had serious concerns – appeared moderate and sensible, rather than completely self-serving.

And he used the three dimensions around ‘hate’ speech legislation.

Albo proposed an extreme position of a huge omnibus bill that would never be passed. He eventually conceded and removed a criminal offense for inciting racial hatred, which allowed him to get his legislation through with Liberal support.

That legislation, if you frame it against Labor’s original legislation, appeared moderate.

But others saw it as a radical change to Australians’ free speech rights. The Nationals, who took that view, refused to vote for the revised legislation alongside their Liberal colleagues, and the resulting fallout caused the Coalition to split.

Great move Albo!

Labor’s genius is that this use of the three dimensions is largely rhetorical. It doesn’t necessarily reflect what they do in a policy sense.

You could argue that huge government spending, mass immigration, and big social reforms (the Indigenous Voice) are not remotely moderate. Similarly, you could argue that restrained Government spending, concerns around immigration and protecting free speech are not ‘far right’.

But, despite the policies they espouse and implement, Albo and the ALP manage to successfully keep positioning themselves in the voters’ minds as moderate.

Albo’s problem is that, as voters continue to get mugged by reality (higher inflation, higher rates, fraying social cohesion, etc), over time, they might start to see through the rhetoric and wake up to the fact that he is anything but middle-of-the-road.