Andrew Yang on Message Over Outcome: Why Warnings Are Ignored—and How We Pay the Price
I discuss with 2020 US Presidential candidate Andrew Yang the prioritisation of message over outcome in modern day politics and how this leads to ignored warning signals and disastrous consequences.
Politics is capricious. Someone can be screaming about an iceberg that we’re heading towards, only to be ignored, mocked or belittled for doing so, then cast aside when the iceberg hits. Sociologically, this is fascinating yet profoundly depressing. In Greek mythology this would be referred to as Cassandra syndrome: the curse of foreseeing the future but having no one believe you.
Politics is not a field where you are rewarded simply for being right, rather it is about putting on a front and managing your public appearance. Modern politics is performative, not performance based.
That’s not to say there aren't hard working politicians improving people's lives. They are too few and far between, but they do exist. However, I would argue that the majority of politicians nowadays, especially those who rise to prominence are those who are mainly performative - not those who achieve the best outcomes. Potentially Kier Starmer is an exception to this rule of modern day politics, as even his allies would say he is not always the best presenter and political performer.
Nonetheless, I don’t think tangible outcomes are measured and valued nearly as much as they should be (this may seem like a separate point but bear with me). Take Brexit. Some of the key reasons people voted for Brexit were to control our borders (reduce immigration) and grow our economy by securing new trade deals. If you look at the results however, immigration is through the roof and our economy is £140 billion smaller as a direct result of Brexit. Brexit, by objectively looking at the cold hard numbers has been a complete failure. But then remember, in modern day politics the outcome one achieves is not all that important. For we restored our freedoms and took back control so hey, why do the numbers matter? The message is far more important than the outcome. The Brexit case is a perfect example of this point. Far too many in the mainstream media and political realm do not care about what happens, they care about what people say about what will happen. Message over outcome.
When I think about the prioritisation of message over outcome I can't help but think of Andrew Yang. If you know me or have read my work before you’ll probably know that I am a fan, have been very supportive of his work and often refer to him as my political god. In his 2020 Presidential campaign (during which he did better and polled higher than former Vice President Kamala Harris who didn't even make it to Iowa and was polling far far higher than the now Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard who sought his endorsement - but has since sold her soul to Trump) he was shouting from the rooftops about Universal Basic Income - which many credit as a key reason Americans got cash relief during the pandemic. But during that campaign he for large parts was not taken seriously by the mainstream media, who couldn't even get his name right half the time.
Despite his achievements in that campaign, going from 0 to being on the debate stage time and time again, with people like Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, and being a serious player in the race, polling higher than many US senators, like Harris - too many of his cries went unheard and he was ignored by many in the media.
After his Presidential campaign Andrew ran for Mayor of New York City. The mainstream media launched a mass concerted attack on Yang, who early on, was miles ahead in the polls, but these media attacks almost cut his numbers in half, something I have written about before. In one debate Yang raised fellow frontrunner Eric Adams’s past corruption charges, in what I think was one of the best debate moments of any political candidate in recent history. Yang said:
Yang was sounding the warning signals but was ignored and attacked by the media. And lone behold the now Mayor of New York City Eric Adams is facing serious charges of corruption, bribery and fraud. Who could have seen that coming?
Yang then threw his support behind one of Joe Biden’s only Democratic primary challengers Dean Phillips - who was quite literally the one person in Congress who was brave enough to tell what was quite clearly the truth in that Joe Biden does not defeat Donald Trump again. Despite sacrificing his Congressional career and standing up for what he believed in, and what ultimately turned out to be true, Phillips was ignored by the media. It is not dissimilar to the way Marianne Williamson who also challenged Biden was ignored and laughed at by Biden’s then Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre for daring to challenge her ailing boss. If more people had listened to Phillips and Yang (or Williamson) earlier on and Biden drops out sooner, then it is very possible Kamala (or Phillips or Williamson) beats Trump (as remember, Harris only had around 90 days to build a campaign and spread her message - and she closed the gap substantially in that time). If this were so, the US would be having some very very different policy outcomes at the moment.
I asked Yang how it feels to have been proven right on so many issues, yet see these warnings largely unheeded and why he thinks people struggle to recognise looming challenges like these. I, for one, would find it incredibly frustrating. Andrew replied saying:
I saw AI coming too! Often calling it like you see it is going to be somewhat unpopular because if everyone else saw it then you wouldn’t need to do anything. I do think that people are getting increasingly open to different approaches because the status quo is going so poorly. Entrenched habits and mindsets don’t disappear overnight but they are changing.
I do think Andrew has a point here. Whether it is caused by the desperation generated by a second Trump term or people struggling to get by - potentially people are getting more open to alternatives. Or maybe Trump exists as a political force because of that willingness to consider alternatives and frustration with the status quo?
Regardless, the issue persists: by prioritising message over outcome, we miss critical warning signs. Performative politics dominates, and the media amplifies this by favouring those who align ideologically with their own views or who can dominate a news cycle, rather than those who deliver meaningful results or sound alarms about looming dangers. In some cases, as with Yang during his mayoral campaign, the media actively seeks to smear or discredit voices raising inconvenient truths. To hell with the icebergs—or outcomes, for that matter.
These dynamics are deeply intertwined. By prioritising message over outcome—or valuing performative politics over substantive performance—the mainstream media not only misses but often ignores or belittles those urgently warning about the crises we’re barrelling toward. If these warnings don’t fit the preferred narrative, they’re dismissed outright - and the messengers are proverbially shot for daring to speak up. This dynamic also perpetuates a lack of accountability, as the focus remains on messaging rather than the real-world consequences of political actions, such as the objective outcomes of Brexit or the repercussions of another Trump presidency.
Put simply, by prioritising message over outcome—or valuing performative politics over genuine performance—critical warning signals are often overlooked. This happens either because the message itself isn’t deemed persuasive enough or because the outcome is treated as secondary, overshadowed by the allure of rhetoric and spectacle.
To clarify, I recognise that a focus on messaging is often necessary to create the opportunity for delivering good outcomes. However, my point is that the focus on message has become disproportionately dominant, often overshadowing the importance of tangible results.
Furthermore, this isn’t just about the occasional case of someone being right and others failing to see it. Andrew Yang’s experience highlights a deeper, systemic issue: someone can be proven right time and time again yet still be dismissed by the mainstream media because the focus remains on message, not outcome, and on performative theatrics over meaningful performance. Why care about the consequences of the actions of a Farage or a Trump when their messaging is popular and why listen to anyone else who may be raising legitimate warning signs?
I feel this is a colossal problem in our politics, and one, to be frank I am not sure how to solve - but it is nonetheless worth reflecting on. If you take one thing from this article I plead that you encourage those around you to look at the concrete actions of politicians and what they have done in the past, as opposed to merely what they say. We need a paradigm shift to flip the status quo and prioritise outcome over message.