Where to Go After Trump?

This question has caused a rift on the right. In discussing potential paths forward, a book released during Trump’s presidency seems particularly relevant right now: RR Reno’s *The Return of the Strong Gods*.

“The evil gods of blood, soil, and identity cannot be overcome by the open society therapy of debilitation,” Reno writes.

MAGA 2.0?

There’s a segment of the right that seems eager to continue ushering in what President Trump termed a “golden era” by embracing a more assertive, nationalist conservatism.

Meanwhile, those on the center-right—often perceived as liberal—are trying to undermine this faction as we approach the 2028 election, labeling some aligned with Vice President J.D. Vance as “righteous woke.”

These liberal critics have valid concerns. Vance’s recent win demonstrates his sway and suggests that the MAGA movement is more of a long-distance effort than a fleeting phase.

Libertarian Tendencies

In contrast, another group, with figures like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) as potential contenders for the 2028 primary, seems intent on behaving as though the populist movements of the past decade haven’t fundamentally shifted the landscape. They appear inclined to return to a more classically conservative, libertarian tone.

This approach seems to be born from a broader context of declining trust, characterized by cultural deregulation, foreign policy blunders, demographic challenges, and a waning sense of community.

The establishment figures of both parties, long critical of MAGA initiatives, may well view this faction’s rise positively.

However, early polling suggests that Republican primary voters are not particularly inclined to revert to the leadership style prevalent during George W. Bush’s presidency. This hesitance could be traced back to a book published about six years ago.

Weak Love vs. Strong Gods

In *The Return of the Strong Gods: Nationalism, Populism, and the Future of the West*, RR Reno, who is also a political philosopher and editor at *First Things* magazine, explores the roots and implications of the recent nationalist and populist movements in the West.

Reno describes the book as “an essay on the politics of imagination,” detailing a myriad of initiatives—both classical and progressive—that have attempted to “disillusion and desacralize public life” post-World War II. The aim, he argues, has been to create “open societies” where a “strong God”—the cornerstone of love and loyalty—is increasingly undermined by more fragile allegiances like relativism and diversity.

According to Reno, the impetus behind this weakening of societal bonds traces back to beliefs in the early 20th century that suggested strong attachments could render people susceptible to manipulation, potentially leading to totalitarian outcomes.

He posits that the foundational theory underpinning the postwar agreement suggested that strength—whether in love or truth—was synonymous with oppression, while freedoms and prosperity required weaker commitments.

Reno argues that this has ended poorly.

Creating Monsters

He claims that, while striving to diminish intense love, the trauma-informed liberal elites inadvertently diluted the significant ties, such as family, nation, and religious loyalty, that unify Western civilization and foster belonging. This has resulted in a dysfunctional society and paradoxically birthed the very “dark love” they aimed to eradicate.

“The evil gods of blood, soil, and identity cannot be overcome by the open social therapy of undermining,” he warns. He also states that reductive methods of multiculturalism could inadvertently feed white nationalism’s rise.

“Reimposing the obligations of an open society won’t stop the resurgence of fallen deities. Only genuine love can replace false affection,” he concludes.

The Language of Love

Reno asserts that post-war liberal regimes have been effective in generating dislocation and desperation, inadvertently giving rise to a segment of the population marginalized by elites. This frustration triggered a collective desire for reconnection, which famously manifested in 2016 as a rejection of the established narrative.

During his first term and into recent months, President Trump has opted for a model of reintegration rather than deregulation, achieving notable strides along the way.

Those who wish to drag the right back toward an open society may be facing an uphill battle.

Those in the first faction would do well to heed Reno’s cautions regarding open societies, especially if they find themselves in leadership roles. “This challenge cannot be met on merely political grounds, as if nationalism alone can conquer a ‘destiny of weakness.’ There needs to be a greater emphasis on fortifying the overarching narrative,” he insists.

“Our responsibility,” he concludes, “is to revive public life in the West by establishing a language of love and a vision of ‘us’ that aligns with our dignity, appealing both to our reason and emotions. We must embrace the strong gods who inspire us from above to combat the dark entities that rise from below.”