Those arch-theories already exist in the theories like Dialectical Materialism, or worse, Fascism, and with terrible consequences once they confronted reality.
The circumstantial perspective of (Liberal Western) Modernism & Postmodernism may have it's flaws, but it has offered more practical results in policymaking than not.
In fact, I think the lack of such an attempt to make a coherent story is what draws people to the over simplified ones in the first place.
Unless your position is a kind of Daoist quietism, I’m not sure what you are suggesting instead.
Maybe there aren’t any such that are risk free. So you have to evaluate both the potential upsides and downsides to see if it’s a net positive and worthwhile risk to take.
If it helps, neither do they. Given that they are already suggesting Postmodernism provides a valuable philosophical and analytic view to understand the world, it's pretty clear that they've given up on any concept of defining a pathway, outcome, or objective.
Isn't this exactly part of Hitler's story though? I think I'm misunderstanding what your concept of "story" means.
But without that it’s hard to see how such proposals have any merit at all, considering the historical track record.
In another comment thread, I wrote that a story is needed which combines accurate scientific information with a human purpose in the world. Those examples quite obviously didn’t have scientific views of the world.
Any extremist political '-ism' has thousands of murders in his belt.
The best goverments are the centered ones, the ones which gave both individual and social rights.