What do you think?
Rate this book
The Rise of the Outsiders: How Mainstream Politics Lost its Way
Something strange has been happening. All over the world, people are angry and rejecting the establishment like never before. Britain votes Brexit. Trump promises walls in America. Corbyn promises a new socialism in the UK. Tsipras in Greece. Podemos in Spain. Marine Le Pen in France. Norbert Hofer in Austria. The list goes on. Why has the mainstream lost support? Why are the outsiders flourishing on far left and far right? Do they have the answers to our problems? In this landmark book, political journalist Steve Richards provides a captivating account of the defining political phenomenon of this decade. Telling the riveting story of how eccentrics, ideologues, and strong men are breaking the political rules, he asks why they're gaining support and examines the frightening implications of this new global rise in anti-establishment sentiment. Are we approaching a new age of populism, where democracy is eroded? The Rise of the Outsiders tackles all of these questions and more. Exploring how and if the mainstream can regain voters' trust, this is a book that no politically engaged reader can afford to miss.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published June 15, 2017
25 people are currently reading
280 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
September 9, 2017
Extraordinary. Brilliant. Powerful. Poignant. Deadly. This book demonstrates how un(der)qualified outsiders on the right and left have gained momentum and traction. The argument is sound. The 'mainstream' left and right vanquished concrete discussions of the state, regulation and governance, enabling bizarre, ignorant and foolish people to gain power via the intellectual vacuum.
Superb. This book explains why we are in the mess we are in - and how we can get out of it.
Superb. This book explains why we are in the mess we are in - and how we can get out of it.
May 13, 2018
The political earthquakes of Brexit, Donald Trump and the Refugee crisis – and the concomitant rise of radical populist anti-establishment political movements – have generated an avalanche of books in the last two years as writers scramble to offer an explanation for these trends. “The Rise of the Outsiders”, by the veteran British political journalist Steve Richards, is one of the most clear-sighted analyses we’ve yet seen on this populist surge. Crucially, Richards explains the rise of the radical right and left, not as forces that have suddenly crawled out of the swamp of their own volition, but rather as a reaction to the failures of mainstream political parties.
Steve Richards astutely notes how the rise of populist outsiders has had the perhaps unexpected effect of reopening the debate on the role and reach of the state. One commonality of far right and far left insurgents is they both share a belief in a more active interventionist government. In doing so, the outsiders have come to dominate an ideological battleground long ago vacated by the mainstream parties – intellectual space left vacant because “the mainstream left is too scared to frame arguments around the benevolent potential of the state, and the mainstream right is ideologically disinclined to do so”.
When accounting for the rise of populist anti-establishment movements, Richards is particularly scathing about the mainstream centre-left and their ultimate culpability. Battered by their electoral defeats in the 1980s, the centre-left in the U.K. and U.S. retreated into a kind of ‘neo-liberalism lite’ during the 1990s. This created New Labour and New Democrat parties that Richards characterises as “too timid, too accepting of the status quo” (he is damning about the “timidly expedient” Tony Blair), and so ideologically-hollowed out by their flip-flopping and triangulations that by the early 2000s they were woefully ill-equipped to deal with the coming financial crash.
Having long allowed the levers of state intervention to rust away, when rapid globalisation and the 2008 financial crash left their core voters facing “widening inequality, immigration and shapeless new work patterns”, the centre-left had few answers. And when your leaders have spent the previous 20 years trumpeting how “the left-right divide in politics is over”, don’t be too surprised when your voters surmise that “politicians are all the bloody same” and, amidst the chaos of the financial crisis, begin switching to populist anti-establishment alternatives. Similarly, the mainstream right, by monomaniacally focusing on a libertarian ‘shrink the state’ philosophy since the dawn of Thatcherism and Reaganism in the 1970s, left space for both the radical right and left to flourish when the free market provided incapable of addressing the needs of voters. As Steve Richards crisply describes the mainstream left, “they chose to be powerless at a point when a significant number of voters were becoming more insecure about work, housing, the quality of public services and their longer-term economic prospects”. And the new populist movements of the right were all too happy to step into that ideological space and cynically pose as advocates of greater state spending and social protection.
But, while the radical right might now appear resurgent across much of the western world, Steve Richards provides us with a useful reminder that these outsiders are often weaker than we think (and certainly weaker than how they like to project themselves). One only has to look at the recent history of UKIP or the Italian 5 Star Movement to see how these outsider parties are - almost as a rule - ideologically incoherent, prone to internecine infighting that would put a Trotskyite splinter group to shame, and pitifully unprepared for power (as Richards puts it “these are not formidable political movements. They have become formidable in spite of themselves”). To paraphrase Jim Larkin, the outsiders only appear great because the mainstream is on its knees.
“The Rise of the Outsiders” is an immensely readable insight into our current political moment, how anti-establishment movements have proved so successful at the ballot box and at setting terms of public debate on everything from immigration to economic trade. Steve Richards presents his arguments with a clarity and brevity that the reader (whether they are a political anorak or a more casual observer) cannot fail to find illuminating. He is unsparing in his analysis of the failures of mainstream political parties whose timidity and ineptitude at meeting the challenges of the 21st Century have allowed the radical outsiders to flourish. Interestingly he suggests that there can only be a return to ‘normal’ political competition between centre-left and centre-right when the centre-left and centre-right stop agreeing with each other about everything (Richards is also highly critical of his own profession i.e. a modern media that “reduces leaders to a sense of neurotic powerlessness”.
If I had slight criticisms of “The Rise of the Outsiders” they would be that Steve Richards seems overly sanguine about the effects of social media on our democracies, and he has little to say about how online filter bubbles tend to accentuate the hyper-partisan nature of our political debates. Richards is also a touch complacent that when political outsiders like Trump are elected to political office they will automatically be ground down by the compromises necessary to hold power (the recent experience of demagogues such as Viktor Orban and Vladimir Putin would suggest otherwise).
But, these quibbles should not detract too much from what is an enthralling explanation, not just of the age of populism, but also how the establishment insiders squandered the trust that voters had placed in them. “The Rise of the Outsiders” is essential reading for anybody tying to make sense of a political world seemingly in meltdown
Steve Richards astutely notes how the rise of populist outsiders has had the perhaps unexpected effect of reopening the debate on the role and reach of the state. One commonality of far right and far left insurgents is they both share a belief in a more active interventionist government. In doing so, the outsiders have come to dominate an ideological battleground long ago vacated by the mainstream parties – intellectual space left vacant because “the mainstream left is too scared to frame arguments around the benevolent potential of the state, and the mainstream right is ideologically disinclined to do so”.
When accounting for the rise of populist anti-establishment movements, Richards is particularly scathing about the mainstream centre-left and their ultimate culpability. Battered by their electoral defeats in the 1980s, the centre-left in the U.K. and U.S. retreated into a kind of ‘neo-liberalism lite’ during the 1990s. This created New Labour and New Democrat parties that Richards characterises as “too timid, too accepting of the status quo” (he is damning about the “timidly expedient” Tony Blair), and so ideologically-hollowed out by their flip-flopping and triangulations that by the early 2000s they were woefully ill-equipped to deal with the coming financial crash.
Having long allowed the levers of state intervention to rust away, when rapid globalisation and the 2008 financial crash left their core voters facing “widening inequality, immigration and shapeless new work patterns”, the centre-left had few answers. And when your leaders have spent the previous 20 years trumpeting how “the left-right divide in politics is over”, don’t be too surprised when your voters surmise that “politicians are all the bloody same” and, amidst the chaos of the financial crisis, begin switching to populist anti-establishment alternatives. Similarly, the mainstream right, by monomaniacally focusing on a libertarian ‘shrink the state’ philosophy since the dawn of Thatcherism and Reaganism in the 1970s, left space for both the radical right and left to flourish when the free market provided incapable of addressing the needs of voters. As Steve Richards crisply describes the mainstream left, “they chose to be powerless at a point when a significant number of voters were becoming more insecure about work, housing, the quality of public services and their longer-term economic prospects”. And the new populist movements of the right were all too happy to step into that ideological space and cynically pose as advocates of greater state spending and social protection.
But, while the radical right might now appear resurgent across much of the western world, Steve Richards provides us with a useful reminder that these outsiders are often weaker than we think (and certainly weaker than how they like to project themselves). One only has to look at the recent history of UKIP or the Italian 5 Star Movement to see how these outsider parties are - almost as a rule - ideologically incoherent, prone to internecine infighting that would put a Trotskyite splinter group to shame, and pitifully unprepared for power (as Richards puts it “these are not formidable political movements. They have become formidable in spite of themselves”). To paraphrase Jim Larkin, the outsiders only appear great because the mainstream is on its knees.
“The Rise of the Outsiders” is an immensely readable insight into our current political moment, how anti-establishment movements have proved so successful at the ballot box and at setting terms of public debate on everything from immigration to economic trade. Steve Richards presents his arguments with a clarity and brevity that the reader (whether they are a political anorak or a more casual observer) cannot fail to find illuminating. He is unsparing in his analysis of the failures of mainstream political parties whose timidity and ineptitude at meeting the challenges of the 21st Century have allowed the radical outsiders to flourish. Interestingly he suggests that there can only be a return to ‘normal’ political competition between centre-left and centre-right when the centre-left and centre-right stop agreeing with each other about everything (Richards is also highly critical of his own profession i.e. a modern media that “reduces leaders to a sense of neurotic powerlessness”.
If I had slight criticisms of “The Rise of the Outsiders” they would be that Steve Richards seems overly sanguine about the effects of social media on our democracies, and he has little to say about how online filter bubbles tend to accentuate the hyper-partisan nature of our political debates. Richards is also a touch complacent that when political outsiders like Trump are elected to political office they will automatically be ground down by the compromises necessary to hold power (the recent experience of demagogues such as Viktor Orban and Vladimir Putin would suggest otherwise).
But, these quibbles should not detract too much from what is an enthralling explanation, not just of the age of populism, but also how the establishment insiders squandered the trust that voters had placed in them. “The Rise of the Outsiders” is essential reading for anybody tying to make sense of a political world seemingly in meltdown
February 21, 2019
I'm not sure that there was any great original insight in this book, any entirely new idea that I had not read anywhere before (though I do read Richards' own journalism quite a bit) but as an overview, a tour d'horizon of recent political developments in the western world, there was little in this that I was inclined to argue with.
He seeks to examine both what unites and what separates left-populists like Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain and Corbyn's Labour party from right-wing populists like Trump, UKIP and Le Front National, and what exactly were the failings of (for want of a better term) the centre-left and centre-right, both real and perceived, that opened the door to them. In looking at what provided the space for various 'insurrectionary' movements to take hold, I think he does a good job of summarising the various issues in play, even if I'm not so sure that he explains what the incumbents could have done differently that might have resulted in things going differently.
I was persuaded by the idea that a part of the problem was the tendency of politicians, particularly on the centre-left, to overstate their power to effect change - "yes we can" anyone? - whilst at the same time privately underestimating their freedom of action, believing that any departure from economic orthodoxy and received wisdom to be political suicide. He draws an interesting parallel with the situation that politicians of the 1970s found themselves in, whereby they were so desperate to avoid the mistakes made by leaders from their own childhood in the 1930s that led to the depression and mass-unemployment, that they failed to understand quite how the world around them had changed and how the problems facing them were not the same as those that faced their predecessors.
The book was quite good on the way in which the experience of being in power almost inevitably slowly strips so-called political outsiders of the very thing that propelled them to power in the first place. How you can't claim to represent 'the people' or 'real people' against some kind of out of touch elite when you hold the levers of power for yourself. You can't be both 'the government' and 'anti-establishment' forever. Such politics relies on the idea that the governing class are uniquely corrupt and that all can be made better by sweeping them away - "drain the swamp" anyone> - when really even corruption is often driven more by institutional factors than individual personalities (not to say that said individual personalities can't occasionally make a difference). While self-interest and corruption are not necessarily entirely figments of the outsiders' imagination, governing is hard - many of the problems facing the world's developed countries are complex, deep-rooted and involve awkward trade-offs between competing priorities. And far from being out of touch, politicians of any stripe are almost neurotically concerned with exactly what the voters are thinking - with every headline, opinion poll or focus group outcome.
Inevitably, like any book about politics, it quickly becomes out of date. It appears that this was written in the aftermath of the 2016 referendum but before the 2017 election. I'd be interested to know to what extent Richards thinks that the share of the vote taken by the big two parties - unprecedented in my lifetime, might reflect the fact that each has a populist party within a party in uneasy coalition with a more traditional establishment party. There's little, too, on whether this is more than just a first-world phenomenon. How do Bolsonaro, Chavez/Maduro, Erdogan or Duterte fit into this picture? That, though, is probably for another book. This one provides a coherent take on how we got to where we are now, even if it is far from clear where we might be heading
He seeks to examine both what unites and what separates left-populists like Syriza in Greece, Podemos in Spain and Corbyn's Labour party from right-wing populists like Trump, UKIP and Le Front National, and what exactly were the failings of (for want of a better term) the centre-left and centre-right, both real and perceived, that opened the door to them. In looking at what provided the space for various 'insurrectionary' movements to take hold, I think he does a good job of summarising the various issues in play, even if I'm not so sure that he explains what the incumbents could have done differently that might have resulted in things going differently.
I was persuaded by the idea that a part of the problem was the tendency of politicians, particularly on the centre-left, to overstate their power to effect change - "yes we can" anyone? - whilst at the same time privately underestimating their freedom of action, believing that any departure from economic orthodoxy and received wisdom to be political suicide. He draws an interesting parallel with the situation that politicians of the 1970s found themselves in, whereby they were so desperate to avoid the mistakes made by leaders from their own childhood in the 1930s that led to the depression and mass-unemployment, that they failed to understand quite how the world around them had changed and how the problems facing them were not the same as those that faced their predecessors.
The book was quite good on the way in which the experience of being in power almost inevitably slowly strips so-called political outsiders of the very thing that propelled them to power in the first place. How you can't claim to represent 'the people' or 'real people' against some kind of out of touch elite when you hold the levers of power for yourself. You can't be both 'the government' and 'anti-establishment' forever. Such politics relies on the idea that the governing class are uniquely corrupt and that all can be made better by sweeping them away - "drain the swamp" anyone> - when really even corruption is often driven more by institutional factors than individual personalities (not to say that said individual personalities can't occasionally make a difference). While self-interest and corruption are not necessarily entirely figments of the outsiders' imagination, governing is hard - many of the problems facing the world's developed countries are complex, deep-rooted and involve awkward trade-offs between competing priorities. And far from being out of touch, politicians of any stripe are almost neurotically concerned with exactly what the voters are thinking - with every headline, opinion poll or focus group outcome.
Inevitably, like any book about politics, it quickly becomes out of date. It appears that this was written in the aftermath of the 2016 referendum but before the 2017 election. I'd be interested to know to what extent Richards thinks that the share of the vote taken by the big two parties - unprecedented in my lifetime, might reflect the fact that each has a populist party within a party in uneasy coalition with a more traditional establishment party. There's little, too, on whether this is more than just a first-world phenomenon. How do Bolsonaro, Chavez/Maduro, Erdogan or Duterte fit into this picture? That, though, is probably for another book. This one provides a coherent take on how we got to where we are now, even if it is far from clear where we might be heading
February 23, 2023
It's all getting worse and people shout at each other more. Though it felt that it jumped from nation to nation a bit too quick for me, a smarter reader would have been able to get it. I especially enjoyed the chapter about the effect the media has on further polarising and reducing politics down to the loudest headline.
Read mainly in my chair, mainly with a coffee.
Read mainly in my chair, mainly with a coffee.
December 11, 2018
Probably one of the scariest books I've ever read but incredibly illuminating and important. Would highly recommend.
January 25, 2021
I was a little bit disappointed with this book initially but by the end Steve Richards had won me over with his engaging and insightful political analysis.
If anything this book feels a little precocious. Published in 2017 Steve tracks the 'pattern', as he refers to it, of political shocks and the rise of an antiestablishment narrative in politics both in the US and Europe, in a range of different countries and political contexts. Since 2017 much has happened and many subjects of the book like Donald Trump, Brexit and the AfD have developed beyond Steve's observations. However to his credit, his arguments are robust in the face of the developments of the last few years and many of his characterisations of the so called 'Outsiders' have held up to be true, but having lived through such troubling times ourselves and only picking up this book three years after it was published, did Richards tell us much we didn't already know?
Richards spends the first section of the book unpacking the idea of political 'outsiders', an incredibly broad term that seeks to reconcile figures from the far-right, far-left and centre ground. In Richards' view a key component of a political outsider is a lack of political experience, or in cases such as Jeremy Corbyn, a lack of experience in government. The outsiders, or their supporters, see this inexperience as a strength. The political establishment, they say, is irredeemably corrupt. Most modern day problems should be blamed on those who have been in charge in recent years.
Richards' here sees a key connection with the 2008 financial crisis eroding the trust between elected politicians and their democratic populations. Particularly the kind of career politicians that have become so ubiquitous in the last few decades for example, Hilary Clinton and David Cameron. It's not just the 2008 crisis that Richards' points too but how public trust was damaged badly by the invasion of Iraq in the 00's, Bill Clinton's impeachment, and more recently Angela Merkel's policy on Syrian refugees.
Richards' argues that these events don't show that the political class is 'out of touch' as is so often claimed, but in fact that the opposite is true: they are so obsessed with their appearance and popularity that they can often be seen making baffling decisions or embarrassing U-turns. Furthermore, are our all-powerful politicians actually that powerful? Or do modern politicians, particularly under the glare of the internet fuelled 24-news cycle have increasing demands on their time and multiple issues to balance simultaneously. Richards' argues that latter and that in contrast, TV celebs like Donald Trump or Comedians like Beppe Grille can say pretty much whatever they want without consequence, while their elected rivals feel incredibly constrained.
I would have enjoyed these claims to be explored in more depth. Richards makes many of his own deductions from major political events and conduces textual analysis of speeches and interviews from major political figures, but there is not much analysis of new academic work or heaps of political data that are so relevant to this field.
I was quite surprised that 'mainstream media' only came up in the fifty odd pages of the book. In recent years we have seen rampant attacks by political outsiders on the media, and the mistrust not only of the political establishment but the main news institutions seem tantamount. Added to this the role of fake news and social media, particularly social media's role not just to spread information but as a tool for campaigners to organise.
Richards' is probably at his strongest here when writing about the intersection of politics and media. This is perhaps unsurprising from a journalist with a varied career in British politics and it is surprising that this analysis took up so little space in the book. I found as a reader that the 8th and final chapter, was the most insightful and most original part of the book. In fact I found throughout the book a sense of repetition, of not really making much progress beyond the outsider vs insider analysis. Much of the book felt more like Richards' was padding his argument with more examples and more information that really developing the ideas. Indeed perhaps this in indicative of Richards' professional experience in the British media and privileged position to make original observations.
This felt in someways like a rather incomplete analysis. For me the opening arguments when on for too many pages with out really moving into original territory, and his final arguments were excellent and my only criticism is their brevity. Overall a powerful cautionary argument of how dangerous precedents have moved into modern politics and that until we fully understand them the recently tumultuous political landscape will probably stay that way.
If anything this book feels a little precocious. Published in 2017 Steve tracks the 'pattern', as he refers to it, of political shocks and the rise of an antiestablishment narrative in politics both in the US and Europe, in a range of different countries and political contexts. Since 2017 much has happened and many subjects of the book like Donald Trump, Brexit and the AfD have developed beyond Steve's observations. However to his credit, his arguments are robust in the face of the developments of the last few years and many of his characterisations of the so called 'Outsiders' have held up to be true, but having lived through such troubling times ourselves and only picking up this book three years after it was published, did Richards tell us much we didn't already know?
Richards spends the first section of the book unpacking the idea of political 'outsiders', an incredibly broad term that seeks to reconcile figures from the far-right, far-left and centre ground. In Richards' view a key component of a political outsider is a lack of political experience, or in cases such as Jeremy Corbyn, a lack of experience in government. The outsiders, or their supporters, see this inexperience as a strength. The political establishment, they say, is irredeemably corrupt. Most modern day problems should be blamed on those who have been in charge in recent years.
Richards' here sees a key connection with the 2008 financial crisis eroding the trust between elected politicians and their democratic populations. Particularly the kind of career politicians that have become so ubiquitous in the last few decades for example, Hilary Clinton and David Cameron. It's not just the 2008 crisis that Richards' points too but how public trust was damaged badly by the invasion of Iraq in the 00's, Bill Clinton's impeachment, and more recently Angela Merkel's policy on Syrian refugees.
Richards' argues that these events don't show that the political class is 'out of touch' as is so often claimed, but in fact that the opposite is true: they are so obsessed with their appearance and popularity that they can often be seen making baffling decisions or embarrassing U-turns. Furthermore, are our all-powerful politicians actually that powerful? Or do modern politicians, particularly under the glare of the internet fuelled 24-news cycle have increasing demands on their time and multiple issues to balance simultaneously. Richards' argues that latter and that in contrast, TV celebs like Donald Trump or Comedians like Beppe Grille can say pretty much whatever they want without consequence, while their elected rivals feel incredibly constrained.
I would have enjoyed these claims to be explored in more depth. Richards makes many of his own deductions from major political events and conduces textual analysis of speeches and interviews from major political figures, but there is not much analysis of new academic work or heaps of political data that are so relevant to this field.
I was quite surprised that 'mainstream media' only came up in the fifty odd pages of the book. In recent years we have seen rampant attacks by political outsiders on the media, and the mistrust not only of the political establishment but the main news institutions seem tantamount. Added to this the role of fake news and social media, particularly social media's role not just to spread information but as a tool for campaigners to organise.
Richards' is probably at his strongest here when writing about the intersection of politics and media. This is perhaps unsurprising from a journalist with a varied career in British politics and it is surprising that this analysis took up so little space in the book. I found as a reader that the 8th and final chapter, was the most insightful and most original part of the book. In fact I found throughout the book a sense of repetition, of not really making much progress beyond the outsider vs insider analysis. Much of the book felt more like Richards' was padding his argument with more examples and more information that really developing the ideas. Indeed perhaps this in indicative of Richards' professional experience in the British media and privileged position to make original observations.
This felt in someways like a rather incomplete analysis. For me the opening arguments when on for too many pages with out really moving into original territory, and his final arguments were excellent and my only criticism is their brevity. Overall a powerful cautionary argument of how dangerous precedents have moved into modern politics and that until we fully understand them the recently tumultuous political landscape will probably stay that way.
March 8, 2024
This is the first political book I've ever read and I feel like it was a good introduction to that genre buuuut I'm not going to rush back to it
July 15, 2021
3.5 stars
This is not the easiest of reads, especially if you are not a follower of UK politics, it does tend to get tangled down in detail at times, with examples from the UK, US but also other places such as France, Germany, Austria etc. The book is addressing a multi-faceted problem and the causes and solutions are no doubt complex - however, it may have helped if the main theses had been a little more clearly signposted and drawn together in the conclusion.
Basically the author points to the rise of outsiders in the political arena, looking at both those from the right as well as the left (e.g. Trump and Sanders) and questions what is their appeal and why have the existing political parties been subject to outflanking and why have these parties been unable to respond. At the root of the problem is the fact that globalisation has made the power of any elected government rather limited, this lack of power has led to a lack of trust amongst the electorate, in turn they have felt that they are losing control of their own lives, and are thus prey to the charms of the radical outsider claiming that they can fix things, let people take back control, even though they often fail to demonstrate any actual ability to fix things. The public share some culpability for this state of affairs, being too quick to believe the worst of their elected representatives, although the press too share responsibility for creating an atmosphere of distrust in experts and career politicians and pandering to the wildest claims of the maverick challengers. Phew!!!!! There is substantially more to it to than this though, with detailed analysis of how mainstream parties had gravitated towards an acceptance of the 'liberal consensus' and were unable to step out of their previously set positions under the new circumstances of the post financial crisis and citizen concerns over the ramifications of globalisation.
The choice to focus on the UK and the US is understandable, I am not sure that adding the sections on the various mainland European parties worked particularly well, if it was to be expanded internationally there may have been other countries and leaders (Duterte for example) that better illustrated the points.
Perhaps it would be churlish to complain that a broader brush could have been used, the author explains well the complexities of the issues and there is substantial wisdom here, and a willingness to take stands that go against conventional wisdom and public opinion (e.g. the statements that most mainstream politicians do really care about the well-being of the public, that they are responsive to the needs of the electorate, and that politicians from different parties are not 'all the bloody same'). So, an important, literate, well argued analysis of complex issues which will continue to impact society for some time to come.
This is not the easiest of reads, especially if you are not a follower of UK politics, it does tend to get tangled down in detail at times, with examples from the UK, US but also other places such as France, Germany, Austria etc. The book is addressing a multi-faceted problem and the causes and solutions are no doubt complex - however, it may have helped if the main theses had been a little more clearly signposted and drawn together in the conclusion.
Basically the author points to the rise of outsiders in the political arena, looking at both those from the right as well as the left (e.g. Trump and Sanders) and questions what is their appeal and why have the existing political parties been subject to outflanking and why have these parties been unable to respond. At the root of the problem is the fact that globalisation has made the power of any elected government rather limited, this lack of power has led to a lack of trust amongst the electorate, in turn they have felt that they are losing control of their own lives, and are thus prey to the charms of the radical outsider claiming that they can fix things, let people take back control, even though they often fail to demonstrate any actual ability to fix things. The public share some culpability for this state of affairs, being too quick to believe the worst of their elected representatives, although the press too share responsibility for creating an atmosphere of distrust in experts and career politicians and pandering to the wildest claims of the maverick challengers. Phew!!!!! There is substantially more to it to than this though, with detailed analysis of how mainstream parties had gravitated towards an acceptance of the 'liberal consensus' and were unable to step out of their previously set positions under the new circumstances of the post financial crisis and citizen concerns over the ramifications of globalisation.
The choice to focus on the UK and the US is understandable, I am not sure that adding the sections on the various mainland European parties worked particularly well, if it was to be expanded internationally there may have been other countries and leaders (Duterte for example) that better illustrated the points.
Perhaps it would be churlish to complain that a broader brush could have been used, the author explains well the complexities of the issues and there is substantial wisdom here, and a willingness to take stands that go against conventional wisdom and public opinion (e.g. the statements that most mainstream politicians do really care about the well-being of the public, that they are responsive to the needs of the electorate, and that politicians from different parties are not 'all the bloody same'). So, an important, literate, well argued analysis of complex issues which will continue to impact society for some time to come.
December 30, 2018
I found this book extremely important in describing how the rise of outsider populist parties undermine democracy in multiple states, particularly in the UK, the US, Greece, Italy and Germany.
It looks at how populists begin to struggle when transitioning between the outside and then becoming an anti-establishment member of the establishment and how, in turn, populist figures and parties struggle like any other elected representative to enforce all of their policies.
I agreed with a lot of the points made in this book and I feel that even in moments when I didn't agree with what Richards was saying, it was still a quintessential read- challenging me to look at things from a different angle.
I feel that this book is incredibly important to read now.
It also points towards solutions to the current crises in the world's democracies in which the rise of outsiders act as an integral symptom/example.
It looks at how populists begin to struggle when transitioning between the outside and then becoming an anti-establishment member of the establishment and how, in turn, populist figures and parties struggle like any other elected representative to enforce all of their policies.
I agreed with a lot of the points made in this book and I feel that even in moments when I didn't agree with what Richards was saying, it was still a quintessential read- challenging me to look at things from a different angle.
I feel that this book is incredibly important to read now.
It also points towards solutions to the current crises in the world's democracies in which the rise of outsiders act as an integral symptom/example.
December 16, 2022
Really good and interesting read. Richards has cut out so much waffle since his book on Brown, and the wide focus of this book really helps this to zip by. Some interesting perspective on causes and CONSEQUENCES, but sadly not too much light at the end of the tunnel.
Also, definitely listen to his podcast
Also, definitely listen to his podcast
September 4, 2024
A recount of recent political events that adds nothing new to the conversation. It’s around the 300 pages of stating the bleeding obvious. It’s emblematic of many centrist political commentators and journalist who are too cowardly to take a side, ironically enabling the rise of the populous outsiders they deride.
August 28, 2018
Fantastic overview as to how mainstream politics have alienated the 'outsiders' in our society. The blue collar workers, the massive shift in culture, globalisation and drastic changes to our society.
It was refreshing but also a worrying trend for the West's future of politics.
It was refreshing but also a worrying trend for the West's future of politics.
July 30, 2023
Interesting to read with the benefit of 5 years’ hindsight. Many accurate critiques of the centre left and right, but also some woefully questionable arguments about the benevolence of politicians trying to do their best. Also a bizarre attempt at a defence of Blair in relation to Iraq…
January 14, 2018
A great read describing the general themes of the current political environment. Some dynamics are also explored.
March 27, 2018
A book about a very current situation. Not sure if I agree with the total premise, but I think it shows the mark of a good book.
May 17, 2018
One could argue that this book became outdated within months of its original publication. However, after a year of Trump's presidency and the ongoing omnishambles Brexit debacle, this book gives us a sober reminder that the wheels were already in motion.
A balanced piece that examines all angles with precise analysis of the failure of the mainstream press, media and laziness of the plebiscite.
A balanced piece that examines all angles with precise analysis of the failure of the mainstream press, media and laziness of the plebiscite.
May 8, 2020
Fantastic book, a great insight into why we currently have the political landscape we do.
July 29, 2022
good for the first 100 pages
October 24, 2024
not as good as some of the other things he has written, but does offer some intriguing insights. Maybe he tries to lump very diverse things together, and it does not quite work
July 22, 2024
I was spectical but I really enjoyed this book, I think it had alot of really interesting insights into the 'outsiders' and their rise, but focused alot of what the mainstream politicians have done wrong to allow this to happen, and offered some early beginnings of potential solutions.
The focus and comparative analysis of european countries compared to American politics was interesting - it was nice to learn more about the politics of the continent.
A good book worth a read
Especially felt salient in the context of reform getting their first 4 MPS in this general election
The focus and comparative analysis of european countries compared to American politics was interesting - it was nice to learn more about the politics of the continent.
A good book worth a read
Especially felt salient in the context of reform getting their first 4 MPS in this general election
March 28, 2020
An excellent, comprehensive account of reasons behind how outsiders have taking hold of the public opinion. Slightly exhaustive at times, it does look across European nations, and countries in the West, to support his arguments, although doesn't touch on any developing nations. The idea of Trump acting as his own 'state' was particularly interesting.
Read
September 13, 2017This book is an interesting overview of the rise of the so-called Outsiders, but it doesn't seem to draw any conclusions about what happens next, or what the centre can do to try and regain the ground it has lost (not that this is something which keeps me awake at night). The subtitle "How Mainstream Politics Lots Its Way" seems to lack appreciation of the fact that the outsiders, like it or not, are now mainstream. Things like abolishing tuition fees (good), protectionism (meh) and a strong line on immigration (bad) are part of the political mainstream. The slightly disparaging tone and comments about Corbyn have been slightly surpassed by the election result, but nonetheless it's an interesting book.
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews