More often than not, it felt to me that Laclau was talking to people he considers to be deeply unintelligent and unaware of the most basic tenets of political theory. He does it in the kind of language, though, that would prevent these ignoramuses from following his line of reasoning.
This observation, from a very funny review, struck me because it describes the exact opposite of the stance of the "classic style" toward the reader. The classic writer assumes that the reader is competent and intelligent, more or less the equal of the writer herself. If not actually an equal yet, someone potentially so. Condescension is out. On the other hand, the classic writer never adopts a special language or jargon to speak only to the initiated. So Laclau's prose misses in both directions, both under- and over-estimating the reader. Here is the sample Clarissa uses to illustrate this:
The complexes which we call 'discursive or hegemonic formations', which articulate differential and equivalential logics, would be unintelligible without the affective component. . . We can conclude that any social whole results from an indissociable articulation between signifying and affective dimensions