Making my way through If We Burn. No Gods, No Representatives has been the most interesting chapter thus far - he points out a widespread lack of faith in the idea that political representatives meaningfully represent the interests of the majority of their supporters.
He cites some tangential evidence that this is true, but I think he's less interested in the correctness of the claim than how widespread it is. It's created this large mass of "anti-establishment" voters, who can be harnessed by both the right and the left because they are only loosely ideological. This is reminiscent of the branding of both Trump and Bernie as populists, though I think this framing is a lot less common and relevant in the US in 2024 than it was in 2016.
Another interesting part of this critique is that he extends it far beyond western countries or democracies. He makes an explicit point to call out an essay by a Chinese "New Left" member excoriating China for an increasingly detached, bureaucratic state.
I also get the sense that he sees a certain futility in all this - this style of "anti-politics" has not really produced meaningful change, either, even when the left has managed to harness it. One example he spends some time on is that of Gabriel Boric in Chile, an example of someone who successfully rode an anti-establishment wave into the Chilean presidency, but hanging in the air unspoken is the knowledge of what a clusterfuck his presidency has become.
