Beginning during the pandemic, David Runciman made a series of discursive podcasts devoted to some of the great political thinkers of the past. His first book of essays based on those podcasts, Confronting Leviathan, was a perfect primer for the examination of the exercise of power, through the eyes and words of De Tocqueville and Marx and Hannah Arendt and others, in a time of state-enforced restriction of liberty.
This second collection is timely in a different way. It is loosely themed around those thinkers whose primary focus was imagining different kinds of improvements to the politics and the societies in which they lived; they each attend, in different ways, to the question, Runciman says, of “wanting to know why we find ourselves in the situation we do and how we could achieve something better.” It would be a useful volume to place at the bedsides of Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves.
GIFTED STORYTELLER
Runciman, professor of politics at Cambridge University, wears his scholarship with half a smile. He has that gift, both as a podcaster and as a writer, to illuminate abstruse and abstract ideas with human charm. He also has a journalistic sense of where the story lies. In different ways, then, the meditations here, each 20 or so pages long, on figures as distinct as Jeremy Bentham, and Rosa Luxemburg and Simone de Beauvoir are that rare kind of treat: page-turning life stories that, sentence by sentence, make you feel a little more learned than you felt before.
He begins with Rousseau, and in particular his 1755 Discourse on Inequality, the Swiss philosopher’s entry to an essay competition run by the Academy of Dijon — a sort of Enlightenment France Has Got Talent — that addressed how we ended up in a world in which “an imbecile should lead a wise man, and a handful of people should gorge themselves on superfluities while the hungry multitude goes in want of necessities.”
Briskly examining Jean-Jacques’s rewind into human prehistory to explain this state of affairs, Runciman is able to collapse certain myths, not least that persistent idea that Rousseau was the “friendly” and “natural” philosopher, the first hippy, the consummate rewilder, by reminding the reader that so indifferent was he to the “artificial” and “constraining” bonds of society, that he put all his five children into a foundling home, dramatizing his belief that even family ties were a “sham,” and that the individual and his relationship with nature was all that counted.
At the other “bracing” extreme from Rousseau he argues that Nietzsche, another great unraveller of human political DNA, comes at the “how the hell did we get here?” question from the diametrically opposed position: not “how did the privileged few come to dominate the many” but how did the many, through religion and democracy, come to dominate the few, the elite, the powerful, their true masters? In both cases, however, Runciman argues, their upending of received wisdom on property and propriety, on good and evil, had a forward-looking intent. It was Rousseau’s contention that we had to understand our origins in order to overturn ingrained social hierarchies. In the case of Nietzsche, in Runciman’s generous reading, the speculation on human pre-history was designed to provoke a sense of all that we might be capable of: “We can do anything.”
REMAKING THE WORLD
Between these biggest of philosophical beasts, his accounts of how the nuance and practicality of the world might be remade starts to get evermore interesting. Bentham, a figure too often reduced to his utilitarian catchphrase (and armchair-diagnosed as autistic), is brilliantly revived here; the section on Frederick Douglass, who spent his early years as an enslaved person in Maryland and became the most erudite voice of emancipation, makes you want to immediately download everything he wrote.
Runciman has the curiosity to give that kind of intellectual “rizz” to the soberest of minds. He shows that the Harvard philosopher John Rawls, author of A Theory of Justice (1971), was shaped not only by his experience of the horrors of the second world war, but by the pressing question of “what we were fighting for” — a query his book took 20 years of careful gestation to answer.
That act of supremely concentrated attention is set here, as in life, against the work of Rawls’s Harvard colleague Robert Nozick, whose Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) has become a foundational text for the billionaire tech dreamers of Silicon Valley. Rawls, Runciman reminds you, was a reference point in the “liberal fantasy” of The West Wing, while there was a nod to Nozick in The Sopranos, when a character decides only a madman would give evidence against the mob.
The future of American democracy, you may imagine, lies somewhere between those two poles.
Last week the Economist (“A short history of Taiwan and China, in maps,” July 10) and Al Jazeera both sent around short explainers of the Taiwan-China issue. The Al Jazeera explainer, which discussed the Cold War and the rivalry between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), began in the postwar era with US intervention in the Chinese Civil War and the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) retreat to Taiwan. It was fairly standard, and it works because it appeals to the well-understood convention that Taiwan enters history in 1949 when the KMT retreats to it. Very different, and far
Like many people juggling long hours at work, Chiharu Shimoda sought companionship via a dating app. For two months, he exchanged messages with five or six potential partners, but it wasn’t long before he was seeking out just one — a 24-year-old named Miku. Three months later, they got married. The catch: Miku is an AI bot. And Shimoda knew that from day one. The 52-year-old factory worker is one of over 5,000 users of Loverse, a year-old app that allows interaction only with generative artificial intelligence. Shimoda’s also among a much bigger cohort of people who’ve either given up or
July 15 to July 21 Depending on who you ask, Taiwan Youth (台灣青年) was a magazine that either spoke out against Japanese colonialism, espoused Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ideology or promoted Taiwanese independence. That’s because three publications with contrasting ideologies, all bearing the same Chinese name, were established between 1920 and 1960. Curiously, none of them originated in Taiwan. The best known is probably The Tai Oan Chheng Lian, launched on July 16, 1920 by Taiwanese students in Tokyo as part of the growing non-violent resistance movement against Japanese colonial rule. A crucial part of the effort was to promote Taiwanese
It is truly remarkable how intense the political games being played to be in position to run for top offices in the 2026 local elections already is this far out. Previous columns have examined the northern and southern metropolises and this will explore Taichung, which is shaping up quite differently. Briefly, however, let us examine a few new developments outside of Taichung. Once one of the brightest of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) stars, former Taoyuan mayor and vice premier Cheng Wen-tsan (鄭文燦) has continued to dominate headlines. He has been jailed ahead of his trial and has lost all