Skip to content

The People Are the Problem

Front cover of democracy in spite of the demos
On Larry Alan Busk’s Democracy in Spite of the Demos

There’s a phrase you hear a lot these days: “defend democracy.” You’ll see it on placards, news tickers, protest flyers. It’s the shorthand for a moral good, like justice or peace. But after Donald Trump’s return to the White House, with the full backing of tens of millions of voters, you have to ask: defend it from whom?

Larry Alan Busk’s Democracy in Spite of the Demos was recommended, and it’s not an easy read, but it is a necessary one. It tells a story most political theorists are afraid to tell: that our deep faith in “the people” might be misplaced. That slogans like “democracy now” or “give people a voice” are not always the solution. In some cases, they’re the problem.

This is a book written before Trump’s second term, before Project 2025 began reshaping the state into a weapon of revenge. But it might as well have been written for this moment. Busk asks the question no one else dares to: what if the people want fascism?

He doesn’t mean that as an insult. He means it as a challenge. Political thinkers, from Hannah Arendt to Chantal Mouffe, have built careers around the idea that democracy is a good in itself. That it’s about participation, pluralism, open debate. But when faced with mass support for racism, climate denial, or authoritarian strongmen, they fudge the issue. They say “that’s not real democracy.” Busk’s reply is simple and devastating: yes it is. You just don’t like what the people said.

What makes the book stand out is its refusal to sentimentalise the demos. Busk doesn’t fall back on elite rule or technocratic fixes. He reaches instead for the Frankfurt School. Adorno, Marcuse, the hard-nosed critics of 20th-century ideology. Their insight was that people aren’t simply misled. They’re shaped, by capitalism, by media, by structures of power. There’s nothing irrational about it. Public opinion obeys the logic of spectacle, not reason.

Take climate change. The vast majority of Britons accept it’s happening, but only two-thirds believe humans are responsible, and nearly a quarter think the whole thing’s exaggerated. That’s not ignorance; it’s ideology. The fossil economy doesn’t need outright denial anymore, just enough doubt to delay action. Or take the January 6th rioters in the US. They weren’t “hijacking” democracy. They were acting out its darker possibilities: mass mobilisation in the name of a lie.

This is where Busk is most clear: you can’t build a political theory on blind faith in the people. You have to reckon with what the people are, what they believe, and why. That means dropping the comforting illusion that democratic participation is always good. Sometimes, it reproduces the worst of what already exists.

What Busk gives us is a bracing dose of political realism. Something the left could use more of. He cuts through the liberal fluff and the populist daydreams alike. The question he keeps circling is this: what if we stopped treating the people as a moral ideal and started looking at them for what they are. Shaped by history, soaked in ideology, sometimes dangerous?

In an age where Trump can be re-elected with open calls for retribution, where immigration policy and administration picks are dictated by trolls, and where democracy itself becomes a vehicle for authoritarianism, this question isn’t academic.


Artificial Intelligence (9) Book Review (78) Books (82) Britain (35) Capitalism (9) Conservative Government (35) Creeping Fascism (12) diary (11) Donald J Trump (45) Elon Musk (9) Europe (11) Film (11) France (14) History (9) Imperialism (16) Iran (10) Israel (14) Keir Starmer (10) Labour Government (25) Labour Party (9) Marxist Theory (10) Migrants (13) Nigel Farage (13) Palestine (9) Protest (14) Reform UK (21) Russia (12) Suella Braverman (8) Television (9) Trade Unionism (8) Ukraine (9) United States of America (85) War (19) Work (9) Working Class (9)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

One Response

  1. Thanks very much for this thoughtful (and flattering) review. Glad you found the book of some value!

    Solidarity,
    LB

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Share the Post:

Latest Posts

A vintage revolver mounted on a plain beige wooden wall, evoking the concept of Chekhov’s gun. The weapon is displayed in profile with a dark blued metal frame and a worn wooden grip, lit softly to highlight its aged, utilitarian design.
Alexander Dugin

The Gospel of World War Three: Alexander Dugin and the Death Cult of Civilisation

Alexander Dugin’s latest polemic is not political analysis but fascist sermon—an apocalyptic blueprint in which nuclear war is both inevitable and desirable. Cloaked in the language of sovereignty and tradition, it is a call to arms for a new ideology of holy Russian power. What begins with Fordow ends with the end of humanity. And for that reason alone, it demands scrutiny—not celebration. You listening, tech bros?

Read More »
A square-cropped image featuring the bold black text "THE SAMSON OPTION" in all capital letters on a cream background. The second "O" in "OPTION" is stylised with the upper half containing the Israeli flag and the lower half the American flag, symbolising the book’s geopolitical focus
Iran

The Bomb in the Basement, the Bomb in the Mountains: Israel, Iran, and the Nuclear Hypocrisy of the West

The next state to cross the nuclear threshold won’t be doing anything new. It’ll be following the path Israel already took—building the bomb in secret, shielded by silence and strategic utility. The real precedent was set decades ago in the Negev. That’s the hypocrisy at the heart of the so-called international order: one bomb is a threat to civilisation, the other a pillar of it. This isn’t about non-proliferation. It’s about who gets to own the apocalypse.

Read More »
A stylised, screen-printed poster shows the Spanish PM in a suit walking past large NATO emblems on bold, flat panels. The image is rendered in a 1968 protest aesthetic with a grainy texture and a limited palette of red, navy blue, and beige. The composition evokes vintage political posters, with stark contrast and minimal detail emphasising the symbolism of militarism and conformity.
Donald J Trump

Only Spain Has Got It Right

At The Hague summit, NATO committed to spending 5% of GDP on defence and security by 2035—a figure with no strategic rationale and every sign of submission to Donald Trump. Only Spain said no. Pedro Sánchez broke ranks, arguing that gutting public services to fund rearmament was neither economically justifiable nor politically defensible. In doing so, he exposed what the rest of Europe won’t admit: this isn’t about defence. It’s about deference. And someone had to refuse.

Read More »