Return of the Strong Gods

1. The Postwar Era is Defined by Anti-Imperatives Against Strong Loyalties

Their aim is to dissolve the strong beliefs and powerful loyalties thought to have fueled the conflicts that convulsed the twentieth century.

Postwar reaction. The period after 1945 was shaped by a powerful, American-led response to the violence and totalitarianism of the first half of the 20th century. This response was characterized by a set of "anti imperatives" aimed at preventing a recurrence of such horrors. These included being anti-fascist, anti-totalitarian, anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist, and anti-racist.

Dissolving strong beliefs. The core idea behind these anti imperatives was that strong beliefs, passionate loyalties, and powerful ideologies were the root cause of the devastating conflicts between 1914 and 1945. Therefore, the goal became to weaken or dissolve these forces in society. This impulse intensified even after the fall of communism in 1991, leading to increased vigilance against perceived threats like "microaggressions" and the policing of language.

Historical turning point. While some saw the fall of the Soviet Union as the end of the 20th century, the author argues that the postwar era's rhythms continued, marked by an intensification of the anti imperatives. This relentless pursuit of dissolving strong beliefs has created a paradoxical situation where the fight against the last century's evils prevents the West from addressing the challenges of the current one, leaving people deprived of the solidarity born of shared loves.

2. A Postwar Consensus Favored Openness and Weakening to Prevent Strong Gods' Return

In the second half of the twentieth century, we came to regard the first half as a world-historical eruption of the evils inherent in the Western tradition, which can be corrected only by the relentless pursuit of openness, disenchantment, and weakening.

Singular historical judgment. The trauma of 1914-1945 led to a widespread judgment that the Western tradition itself contained inherent evils that erupted in totalitarianism and war. The prescribed remedy was a relentless pursuit of openness, disenchantment, and weakening across all aspects of society. This became the bedrock of the "postwar consensus."

Beyond politics. This consensus wasn't limited to political anti-totalitarianism; it deeply influenced culture, academia, and even theology. It manifested as:

• Emphasis on openness and weakening in literary criticism and cultural studies (critique, deconstruction).
• Popular calls for diversity, multiculturalism, and inclusivity (weakening boundaries).
• Libertarianism's push for cultural deregulation (weakening shared norms).
• Reductive views in economics and social sciences (disenchantment).

Fear of strong gods. The underlying motivation was the fear that "strong gods"—objects of intense love and devotion, sources of powerful passions and loyalties—could return and lead to destruction, as seen with militarism, fascism, and communism. The postwar consensus sought to replace these with "weak gods" or "gods of weakening" like inclusion, transgression, diversity, and the free market's spontaneous order.

3. Intellectuals Provided the Theories for the Open Society and Spontaneous Order

The consensus that Bush represented so ably at the United Nations held that to combat these evils and ensure that they never return, we must banish narrow-mindedness and cultivate a spirit of openness.

Karl Popper's Open Society. Philosopher Karl Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies" (1945) provided a key intellectual foundation. Popper argued that tribal, "closed societies" based on authority and collectivism lead to totalitarianism. The alternative is an "open society" based on critical questioning, individualism, and anti-metaphysical thinking. He saw strong truth-claims and deference to tradition as dangerous, advocating for a "methodological nominalism" and limiting truth to empirically falsifiable claims.

Friedrich Hayek's Spontaneous Order. Economist Friedrich Hayek, in "The Road to Serfdom" (1944), similarly warned against collectivism and central planning, seeing them as roads to totalitarianism. Hayek championed individualism and the "spontaneous forces of society," particularly the free market, as the principle of social order. He believed the market, unlike government planning, provided order without authority or transcendent ends, thus protecting individual freedom.

Shared anti-totalitarian aim. Despite their differences (Popper more progressive/technocratic, Hayek more libertarian/market-focused), both thinkers shared the core postwar imperative: prevent totalitarianism by dismantling the intellectual and social foundations of strong loyalties and collective identities. They advocated for societies based on openness, critical thinking, and a reduction of public life to pragmatic, non-metaphysical concerns.

4. Therapies of Disenchantment Reduced Truth to Meaning and Interests

Reducing the human condition to economic interests or “selfish genes” has the same political and cultural effect as multiculturalism.

Disenchantment as therapy. The postwar consensus embraced "critical thinking" and various forms of reductionism as necessary cultural therapies to prevent the "authoritarian personality." This built on Max Weber's idea of disenchantment in a scientific age, but transformed it from a hard fate into a redemptive project. The goal was to drain the power from traditional truth-claims and loyalties.

Critique and Reduction. Two main paths emerged:

• The Way of Critique: Figures like Freud (as interpreted by Ricoeur's "masters of suspicion"), Norman O. Brown, and later Foucault and Derrida applied critical methods to expose cultural norms and ideals as manifestations of repressed instincts, power relations, or arbitrary constructs. This culminated in postmodern theory and multiculturalism, which prioritize unmasking and deconstructing traditional Western culture.
• The Way of Reduction: Social sciences, brain science, and economics sought to explain human behavior and social phenomena through material interests, biological processes, or rational choice. This approach reduces complex human motivations and cultural forms to quantifiable, value-neutral data points, effectively neutralizing transcendent or moral claims.

Weakening effect. Both critique and reduction serve the postwar agenda by disenchanting potential objects of strong loyalty. They transform "truth" (seen as fixed and potentially authoritarian) into "meaning" (personal and fluid) or "preferences/interests" (quantifiable and manageable). This weakening is seen as necessary to keep the strong gods at bay and maintain an open society, even if it leads to a fragmented, materialist view of humanity.

5. The Open Society Ideal Became a Rigid Dogma Enforcing Openness

Yes, political correctness is in a certain sense “strong,” but its punitive power is deployed to impose openness and weakening.

Paradoxical strength. While the postwar consensus promotes openness and weakening, it has paradoxically become a powerful, even authoritarian, force in policing opinion. Political correctness, diversity mandates, and the denunciation of dissent are not deviations but tools used to enforce the content of the consensus: dissolution, disintegration, and deconsolidation. The goal is to impose openness.

Denouncing dissent. Anyone challenging the core tenets of openness, diversity, or multiculturalism risks being labeled an enemy of the open society. Critics are routinely accused of being "authoritarian," "fascist," "racist," or "xenophobic," echoing the anti-totalitarian rhetoric of the postwar era. This moralistic framing shuts down debate and justifies punitive measures, from social shaming to professional assassination.

Undying century. This rigid enforcement reveals the postwar consensus as an "undying zombie," unable to recognize its own contingency or decadence. It compulsively returns to fighting the battles of the 20th century, convinced that any deviation from its dogmas will lead back to Hitler. This all-or-nothing moralism blinds elites to present-day problems and poisons political discourse, prioritizing the defense of openness over addressing actual societal needs.

6. Economic and Cultural Openness Eroded Solidarity, Creating Homelessness

The West is careening toward crisis not because of a defect deep within modernity... The distempers afflicting public life today reflect a crisis of the postwar consensus, the weak gods of openness and weakening, not a crisis of liberalism, modernity, or the West.

Unbalanced openness. The relentless pursuit of openness, unchecked by countervailing forces of consolidation and rootedness, has unbalanced the West. Economic globalization, driven by the ideal of open markets, has led to:

• Stagnant middle-class wages in the West.
• Erosion of the social contract between labor and capital.
• A globalized elite disconnected from national economies.

Cultural deregulation. Similarly, cultural openness, championed through diversity and multiculturalism, has led to:

• Weakening of shared norms and traditions.
• Rise of identity politics based on fragmented group affiliations.
• Disenchantment of unifying cultural inheritances.

Crisis of homelessness. This combined economic and cultural deregulation creates a sense of "homelessness" for many. People feel adrift, lacking stable convictions, communal bonds, and a clear sense of belonging. While elites may find shelter in their global networks and private enclaves, ordinary people are left exposed to relentless flux and competition without the guardrails of shared norms or economic security.

7. The Leadership Class is Disconnected From and Contemptuous of Ordinary People

More and more voters in the West sense this strange inability among our leadership class to affirm their loyalty to the people they lead.

Elite insulation. The leadership class in the West, largely educated in and benefiting from the postwar consensus, is increasingly disconnected from the concerns of ordinary people. They thrive in the open economy and open culture, while many others struggle with economic insecurity and cultural fragmentation. This creates a chasm of experience and perspective.

Contempt for the led. This disconnect often manifests as contempt for those who don't embrace the dogmas of openness. People concerned about immigration, cultural change, or economic disruption are dismissed as:

• "Clinging to their guns and religion."
• "Deplorables."
• "Angry white men."
• "Racists" or "xenophobes."

Lack of loyalty. The leadership class's embrace of globalism and universalist ideals (open borders, open trade, open minds) is perceived by many as a fundamental lack of loyalty to their own nations and citizens. Voters sense that their leaders are unwilling to protect them from the downsides of openness, prioritizing abstract ideals or global interests over the well-being of their own people.

8. Populism is a Rebellion Against Decadent, Obligatory Openness

Populism is more than a rebellion against outsourcing, political correctness, and too many foreigners. It is a rejection of the postwar consensus.

Rejection of consensus. Today's populism is fundamentally a rebellion against the decadent postwar consensus and its obligatory openness. It challenges the core tenets that have dominated Western elites for decades. Populist movements often advocate for:

• Stronger borders and limits on immigration.
• Protectionist economic policies.
• Rejection of political correctness and cultural deregulation.
• Renewed emphasis on national identity and patriotism.

Anti-establishment stance. Populist leaders gain power by positioning themselves against the political establishment, which is seen as embodying and enforcing the failed consensus. They articulate the anxieties of those who feel left behind or made homeless by the relentless pursuit of openness. This adversarial stance is a key feature of populism.

Challenging dogmas. Figures like Donald Trump or Brexit supporters directly violate the norms of the postwar consensus. Their calls for walls, national interest first, and unapologetic patriotism are seen as dangerous transgressions by elites, who reflexively denounce them using the familiar language of anti-fascism and anti-racism. This elite reaction, however, only highlights the rigidity and perceived illegitimacy of the consensus being challenged.

9. The West's Crisis is a Lack of Solidarity from Suppressing Shared Loves

The political and cultural crisis of the West today is the result of our refusal—perhaps incapacity—to honor the strong gods that stiffen the spine and inspire loyalty.

Fear of love. The postwar consensus, born from the fear of destructive passions, is fundamentally fearful of love—love of God, truth, country, or family. It sees these strong loves as potential sources of fanaticism and oppression. Therefore, it actively works to suppress or weaken the objects of shared loves through disenchantment and critique.

Erosion of the "we". Solidarity, the sense of common destiny and fraternity, is based on shared loves and loyalties that create a "we." By attacking or weakening these strong gods, the postwar consensus erodes the foundations of solidarity. It leaves individuals isolated, focused on private interests or fragmented identities, rather than united by common purpose or affection.

Anti-politics. The consensus promotes an "anti-politics" focused on technocratic management, therapeutic adaptation, and the avoidance of divisive questions about shared values or collective identity. This approach, while aiming for low-friction civic relations, fails to address the fundamental human need for belonging and shared purpose, leaving a spiritual vacuum that fuels disquietude and resentment.

10. A Humane Future Requires Nurturing Noble Strong Gods

A humane future in the West will require nurturing noble loves.

Beyond weakening. The current crisis cannot be solved by more openness and weakening. The decadent postwar consensus, in its fear of destructive loves, has deprived the West of the noble loves necessary for solidarity and a sense of home. Overcoming this requires recognizing that not all strong gods are malevolent.

Noble loves. The West's tradition offers examples of humanizing strong gods:

• Love of freedom (self-government, liberty).
• Love of honor (virtue, striving for excellence).
• Love of truth (seeking understanding beyond opinion).
• Love of country (shared history, language, land).
• Love of family (bonds of kinship and commitment).

Rebuilding solidarity. These noble loves are not based on identity alone but require intentional effort and free activity to sustain. They draw individuals out of themselves and unite them in common purpose, creating a "we" that is more than an aggregation of private interests. Rebuilding solidarity requires political leadership that is willing to affirm and nurture these shared loves, rather than fearing or suppressing them. This means engaging with questions of national identity, borders, and collective purpose, not dismissing them as relics of a dangerous past.