Politics: A Very Short Introduction

This book will surely produce a highly polarized response as late Australian conservative Kenneth Minogue’s politics would have been highly polarizing in his studies. Minogue essentially traces the Anglo-European understanding of politics as a development from classical traditions. It should be read with that bias in mine: it is Eurocentric, but erudite. Minogue makes good points about the “anti-political” nature of both “ideology” and “despotism” but he also special pleads and “No True Scotsman” to do so. Still, most of these Oxford introductions could be what Hobbes said about humans under the state of nature, “nasty, brutish, and short”—or at least, “idiosyncratic, brooding, and short”—and Minogue manages to be engaging and give a fairly historiographic accounting of what he sees as development of the ideas of European politics. I suspect, however, that most people who disagree with Minogue’s focus on the state or his somewhat specific limitations on “despotism” and “ideology” will quickly disagree with his axioms so that they see the virtues of his accounting. I, personally, do not think so a clear limit can be made between politics as deliberation and politics as the legitimatizing and limiting on violence. Indeed, Minogue’s endorse of Hobbes further complicates this. Lastly. his inability to discuss politics outside of the Greco-Roman and Europe/Anglo Commonwealth and the States perspective really limits the scope of the book in a way that undercuts some of his key points.

I feel that I understand political theory now better than I ever expected I would. I review it often and learn more each time. The last two chapters which discuss ideologies are absolutely essential reading in my opinion and people concerned about our world today will come away with a deeper understanding by VERY carefully reading each fairly brief chapter of this book. I agree with another review above that it is a bit of a challenge to read but I find that if I read it very carefully and even slowly I come away with rich clear understanding . I am grateful I found it and did NOT PUT IT AWAY. It requires just a bit of FOCUS and begins to shape a rich tapestry of how people have learned to live together. ( or tried ). It spans most of recorded history magisterially. I am richer for devouring this gem. It is not super long but extremely thorough!!! A joy.

In Minogue's view, politics as we know it can only exist in a Christian nation, because without Christianity, we have only dictatorship, where politics is forbidden. "Christianity was in these elaborations revealed to be a religon moral challenge." It is this moral challenge that, in Minogue's view, makes modern conservative politics different from the politics of the Greeks and Romans, which only considered the interest of the state and not of the individual. In his concluding chapter, Minogue decribes modern progressive ideas as the enemy of individualism, and possibly the end of politics. In his view, progressives are ideologues, who see the government as the solution to every problem, and strive to introduce a international dictatorship, in which every aspect of human life is controled. This view simply does not jibe with the ideas of any progressives I know. At best, it is an outsider's view of what progressivism is all about. Still, many conservative Christian readers will find this idea appealing, and even liberal readers, such as myself, will find much of interest in the earlier chapters.

I think Professor Minogue's take is influenced by the history of government in Britain these last few hundred years. He sees politics as talk, as in a parliament--where people go to parley. Probably he is right. After all, democracy has lasted longer in Britain than just about anywhere else, including ancient Athens.

Mr. Minogue, who unfortunately somewhat recently passed away, is as subtle as he is clear-sighted in tracing the historical foundations of politics and analyzing the current state of politics and political science. An excellent introduction, which shows the broad and deep command of the subject matter by the author, who captures the essence, and the comparative essence, through times and different theories, of the scientific and practical approach to the subject matter. The last chapter, in particular, dealing with current developments and the appropriation and imposition of morality by the government, is particularly prophetic and worrying...

It is a very educational book on Minogue's standpoint of politics. It taught me about the beginning of what is now known as politics, from Despotism in the Middle East and Patriotism to the Romans. The text informs the reader about the root of politics. Although I somewhat enjoyed reading this and recommend it to anybody willing and able to learn about politics on a deeper level, it is a hard read, in which I mean to say that it is very hard to "get into", or stay engaged.

Excellent and elegant introduction to political theory. As a biochemist I did not think politics could be studied as a science. I stll quibble with that, but what's in a name?

I learned that we are human... even politicians.And parties may reduce to two, but need each other to survive.

Unintelligible . Kenneth Minogue just waffles in his own patwa, no idea what he is talking about. You buy this book hoping to get an introduction to politics and it misses. If you are a high level political theologian you may enjoy this essay. Not for me. Not what I was looking for. Unreadable.

Would have been nice to have a more even-minded, succinct and less pontificating introduction to the subject of politics. This feels a bit ‘halcyon’ for me.

This is truly a very short introduction but very independent for those who are new or in the field.It's a relatively small book for easy commute.

Very interesting nd helpful

Prof. Minogue seems to love the sound of his own voice. No need to provide examples, simply read the other reviews. However expect paragraphs to tumble into nonsense word salad. If there was an organization to this little book, I couldn’t find it. I think I know less about politics now than before reading it.