Anti-Politics: On the Demonization of Ideology, Authority and the State

by Eliane Glaser

Politics as we know it is dead. Populism is disrupting established democracies everywhere. Anti-politicians are taking office. The public is thoroughly depoliticised. Yet the political Right grows ever stronger.

Figures like Donald Trump and Nigel Farage have gained power by distancing themselves from “the establishment” and portraying politics itself as the enemy of the people. And it’s not just them — increasingly, the media and politicians of all stripes hurl the word “ideological” as an insult, tie themselves in knots to avoid mentioning “the working class,” and champion the “depoliticising of key decision-making.”

In On the Demonization of Ideology, Authority and the State, Eliane Glaser — one of the early commentators to call attention to this new wave of populism — takes stock of how we got here and where we’re going. At the heart of this is a vital Is the “death of politics” simply an inevitable sign of the times, going hand in hand with climate change, technological development and postmodern malaise? Or is it the intentional result of right-wing engineering?

In addressing this question, Glaser shows how forces on the Right have manipulated and benefitted from the apathy of anti-politics; and how the Left’s move to centre under neoliberal leaders has helped in the process. She argues that in order to revive productive engagement and hope for the future, we need to return to three pillars of political philosophy that have become dirty ideology, authority and the state. Glaser puts forward a strong and galvanising defence of these foundations, showing that however unpopular they may be, they’re necessary for the functioning of a fair society.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Philosophy

115 pages, Kindle Edition

First published April 17, 2018

Reviews

[Scott · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was mostly pointless. I agree with a number of the larger ideas, especially the problem that there is no cohesive ideology to unite the democratic (or labour) party. We defeat our own mission by attacking one another and infighting over minutiae of platforms and pet issues, dividing the party and making victory over conservatives who can overlook minor differences to unite nearly impossible.

But the writing was insufferably pedantic. Regardless of the quality of the message, you undermine your own point with a tone that says you are trying to show off how much smarter you are than your reader (even if you aren't). The author comes across as the stereotype that the opposition paints us as, which isn't helpful.

Similarly, this is incredibly short. I think this is because it's more of an opinion essay than an actual book exploring concepts and ideas, citing other sources, etc. Each idea is blurted in a few sound bytes, no more than a paragraph full of buzzwords, and then we move on to the next thing. It's very hurried and comes across as deliberately moving quickly to lose those readers who are too dumb to keep up.

The position of the book is generally correct, and this is a valid idea worth exploring. But the way it is presented is insufferably smug and undermines the message with collections of cliches, needlessly long sentence structure, insane density of catchy buzzwords of the day (never elaborating on the ideas they represent, the verbal equivalent of dropping names to sound important and connected), and just generally hurried presentation of opinions rather than any real depth of discussion.

[Kate Page · Rating 3 out of 5]

I agreed with a lot of what Glaser has to say, and recognise the problems that she is raising. It’s definitely an interesting area and one that it is good to see being explored. However, I found the style of writing unsatisfactory - she asks a lot of questions, but then doesn’t spend much time on what she thinks the answers are. In places I lost track of whether she was actually making a point or just raising an issue, and her own positions were allusive. It ended up feeling unsatisfactory.

[Matěj Schneider · Rating 1 out of 5]

utter guardianista cliché-ridden shite

[Scott]

A brilliant, thought-provoking and insightful primer on political critical thinking. Although mostly UK-based, Glaser takes enough from international events to make the non-British reader relate well with her arguments, to which she states from the start that she does not have all the answers. Instead, her writing makes the reader look back at the everyday influx of otherwise subtle and unchecked political narratives one receives from traditional and social media. In assessing both the political left and right, and by confronting the emerging populism on both sides, Glaser shines a necessary light on how politics has somehow lost its way, but not for the reasons we often hear.

[Eoin Hoey · Rating 2 out of 5]

It should be noted that I've read the 2018, paperback, Repeater Books Ed., of this book (ISBN: 978-1-912248-11-7). This edition contains 150 pages.

A coffe table book with notions. This book makes reference to the work of pertinent academics, but barely signposts their work, let alone explore or expand upon it, not even attempting to make accessible some relevant concepts from such authors, in order to support the premise(?) of this volume. The only useful aspect of this book is its very limited bibliography.

[Ken MacIntyre · Rating 3 out of 5]

In Defence Of Politics

A plea for the Left to end its complicity with the populist anti-politics of the Right, and the need for direction and authority against the dissipating effects of unstructured leaderless action.

[Ehren Phipps · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty interesting but quite short.