Book Review: Left Wing, Right Wing, People and Power


Left Wing, Right Wing, People and Power

by Douglas Giles

Genre: Nonfiction / Politics

ISBN: 9781735880860

Print Length: 106 pages

Reviewed by Warren Maxwell

This work of political theory hammers out the brass tack definitions of left and right, liberal and conservative, in order to revitalize partisan debates.

Political conflict is far less about a clash of political ideologies than political theorists and the corporate media portray.

Setting one’s sights on good faith political discourse may appear near utopic today, yet that’s the aim of Left Wing, Right Wing, People, and Power

By delving into etymologies, historical developments, and contemporary distinctions within the broad umbrella of conservative and liberal, this book shifts the center of political argument away from sports-style party competitions toward pragmatic questions of power and what makes a good society. 

Arguing that short-hand terms like “right” and “left” obfuscate the basic political questions of “who has power, how power can be exercised, and how it can be abused,” this is an analysis of where the so-called right and left fall in response to these questions—and further, an outline of how to leverage this information to litigate these questions in a way that is productive.

“Right-wing movements are characterized by their desire and efforts to concentrate power more. In contradistinction, social and political structures that circulate power among a large number of people or institutions are left-wing structures.”

Broadly defining left and right through their solution to the problem of political power, this book argues that the left is dedicated to dispersing power and increasing individual rights to act while the right is dedicated to concentrating power and increasing individual rights from interference  . 

From this core difference, the book draws out distinctions between conservatives and libertarians, liberals and the fake leftwing. Liberals are described as vesting power in law while conservatives vest it in the will of leaders. These and other heady concepts are threaded through a philosophical genealogy that moves all the way from Plato and Edmund Burke through 20th century giants like Isaiah Berlin, Carl Schmitt and up to contemporary theorists such as Byung-Chul Han and Corey Robin.

“The political issue for conservatism is less about governmental power than it is about economic power.”

This is a rare work of political theory that stands out for its conversational style and readability. Its persuasion relies on easy to follow arguments and logical conclusion in order to repaint the intractable modern political landscape as a vast misunderstanding of what is important in politics. 

A great deal of depth is sacrificed in service of this accessibility—philosophers are invoked and woven together in a hybrid manner than smooths over nuances and sometimes ignores finer points of thought (a single sentence lumps Machiavelli, Weber, and Foucault together and then discards them all as having too simplistic a conception of power). Still, the clarity of language and overall charismatic tone makes this an entry-way into political theory that will appeal to general readers and shake up preconceived ideas about politics.

“People on the left wing and the right wing can have different opinions but still all be primarily interested in bettering their community— in seeking the ethical good—and open to dialogue and cooperation. The right-wing reactionaries and the fake Left are not.” 

A double bind at the center of Left Wing, Right Wing, People, and Power is its apparent favoritism for left-wing politics. While the book is admirable in promoting mutual understanding and pushing for a politics of communities rather than divisions along party lines (even identifying the root of “politics” in the Greek word polis, city), its predisposition toward the liberal dream of expanding political power often shines through. This cracks the depictions of both sides being of equal merit and also gestures towards a more central dilemma. 

Both liberalism and conservatism are defined in terms of politics, yet conservatism is often diminished as being more interested in economics and thus less genuinely political than liberalism. Unfortunately, counter-arguments to such broad claims are not entertained—when articulated, they are refuted out of hand without argument. Even though these shortcomings keep the book from being fully convincing, it nonetheless breaks down and reframes the question of politics and contemporary ideology into a fresh and accessible form.

An entertaining glance into the inner workings of political theory, Left Wing, Right Wing, People, and Power takes political action and ideology out of vague dogmas and reforms it into a vital part of social life.


Thank you for reading Warren Maxwell’s book review of Left Ring, Right Wing, People and Power by Douglas Giles! If you liked what you read, please spend some more time with us at the links below.

  1. I appreciate the well-written review of my book. I wish to make two quick clarifications to correct oversights. One is that I do not say that the right wing is “more interested in economics and thus less genuinely political than liberalism.” The reviewer took a quote out of context. I instead acknowledge that economic power is intertwined with political power in both the left wing and right wing approaches to politics. Many on the Left are more interested in economics than those on the right wing are. Two, to the accusation that I favor left-wing politics, I make numerous observations in the book that there are situations in which a right-wing approach could lead to better results. The main theme of the book is not partisanship but a call for greater open dialogue and more inclusive problem-solving. If that’s interpreted as favoring left-wing politics, then that is an interesting observation that should be added to the discussion. Most importantly, we need to get beyond the common practice of thinking of politics in terms of two sides trying to score points on each other. I am, as always, open to further discussion.

    1. I was hoping to find out more about your book. So, I went searching for book reviews and commentary. This is the first one I’ve looked at so far. It does give a decent sense of what you’re writing about, if the reviewer misunderstood some key points. On that level, I’m glad you responded with clarifications.

      Here is how I’d put it, with a spin according to Corey Robin’s work that you also draw upon. Using Burkean moral imagination, the Right is more likely to conflate the economic and political. It’s part of a psychological tactic that obfuscates distinctions in order to undermine discernment and prevent public debate. Power can only operate, on the Right, by obscuring it’s own origins and basis.

      That is why power needs to be dressed up in the costumes taken from the Burken wardrobe of moral imagination. And that is why the Right so fears power being stripped naked or rather, like the allegorical child with the king’s new robes, power being pointed out as already nude. This was demonstrated by Burke’s dark fantasy of grubby-handed peasants disrobing the French queen.

      I’m glad to hear that, “The main theme of the book is not partisanship but a call for greater open dialogue and more inclusive problem-solving.” And I agree that, “If that’s interpreted as favoring left-wing politics, then that is an interesting observation that should be added to the discussion.” According to social science research, that really is the case with liberal-minded ‘openness to experience’.

  2. […] This is a rare work of political theory that stands out for its conversational style and readability. Its persuasion relies on easy to follow arguments and logical conclusion in order to repaint the intractable modern political landscape as a vast misunderstanding of what is important in politics. – IndependentBookReview.com […]

What did you think?

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

Subscribe to Our Newsletters

"*" indicates required fields

I'm a:*