Ruling The Void: The Hollowing Of Western Democracy by Peter Mair
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This book was not what I initially expected, and certainly not what some nationalistic generalized stereotypes might have us believe. There is certainly enough to ensure many neolibs and various other liberal democrats remain somewhat anxious with this book upon its 2009 publication, I’d wager it might seem tamer and a lot more fitting and applicable a decade later now and that much of the book is directly applicable to so much undergoing change (or some would say “assault”) from both within and without and there we have it, I guess.

Don’t get me wrong. Things won’t stay as they are in May 2024. On the contrary, I believe we are riding a transitory time throughout nearly all of the traditional western liberal democracies, and one in which several states have led or begun their somewhat predictable (and seeming impossible to contain to many) transition to/toward forms of autocracy ranging from a lightish model to those approaching stereotypical old school Soviet block-era militant dictatorships which have shown a willingness to rush toward Putin while thumbing their metaphorical nose at NATO and the west, yet while many are [newer] members of such. This is leading to inflamed passions within both politician and people with increasing fears of a regional tinderbox requiring very little to set off what could become “the worst” on a larger scale than even Mair might suggest, a big part of which has conceivably been triggered by Russia’s Aleksandr Dugin-inspired Eurasianistic lethal hostility to the west and more recently to/within Ukraine, following Putin’s actions in Crimea and Georgia, among others. (See my brief response to Dugin’s classic Основы геополитики. Геополитическое будущее России [with a doubtless imperfect Russian-language translation effort on my part].

Or course Eurasianism is not truly original, though one might argue similarly about the western Modernists and their affiliates, foremost of whom would be Guénon and Evola, the latter of whom seems to annually grow in influence among many neo-Nazis and their ilk within traditional liberal democracies, perhaps most notably the United States. And despite the simplicity as well as possible gritting of teeth by various political philosophers over technical (and unintentional) ideological differences, I’m inclined to view Mair’s ideology (some of which seemed merely observational while his views on party democracy seemed to bear out until a perceived recent turnaround yet with some caveats) as having some influence with perception of that lot, with my emphasis on Benoist, Yockey, Sam Francis, and perhaps Oswald Spengler too. Indeed, I doubt I’m alone in viewing current Modernism as more likely to mirror Eurasianism than grossly differ and a primary action that potentially lends credence to that outlook lies in Steve Bannon’s “secret” meeting with Dugin in Egypt some years ago, the specific details of which remain unknown to many while the symbolism of such remains great.

Back to Mair, this book is known everywhere for its importance and influence and while I recognize that, as someone who is not a professional political scientist or philosopher, I’ve had to wander along on my own and in so doing have found others to be more germane to understanding the past century and efforts to remake nearly everything in the west for me personally, some of whom I’ve already mentioned. That said, I think this book is an important read for anyone interested such things and as such, I feel inclined to recommend it for those exploring these ideological and political movements, etc. Cautiously, four stars.

 

Review by Scott Holstad

May 16, 2024