The Strange Death of Light: Geointellectual Power and the Triumph of Dark Aesthetics in Western Politics

by Jens Hillebrand Pohl, FHGS*

Published: November 8th, 2024

Introduction

In politics, aesthetics are far more than appearances—they are vehicles of ideological expression that shape legitimacy, authority, and trust. To survive and thrive, states, firms, and individuals must navigate not only interests, incentives, and power dynamics but also the aesthetics that shape public perception. Political aesthetics convey values, moods, and visions that resonate with people’s identities and align them with a shared cause. These aesthetics form a vital part of what we might call geointellectual power: the power to influence, unify, and direct public sentiment by projecting an ideological narrative; indeed the power to create (what is held to be) truth. Aesthetic narratives can encourage solidarity or provoke division, signaling an underlying struggle over what society values and whom it trusts.

The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election marked a definitive victory of dark political aesthetics over light, a culmination of over a decade of contestation between optimism and realism that began well before Donald Trump’s first term. This shift signifies what might be called the 'strange death' of light political aesthetics, invoking George Dangerfield’s famous analysis of Liberal England’s decline in the run-up to World War I to describe the displacement of optimism and inclusivity in today’s politics. Light aesthetics once dominated Western politics through the progressive vision of Wilsonian internationalism and the conservative optimism of Reaganite nationalism. Both light varieties celebrated American ideals of unity, inclusivity, and hope in the promise of a brighter future. Now, however, a more defensive, resilient, and protectionist vision has been firmly established. This transformation in American politics is not only a domestic phenomenon; it has deep implications for the entire Western world, with Europe and other democratic societies likely to experience similar changes in the coming decade.

This essay explores how light and dark aesthetics have evolved within American and Western political culture, why dark aesthetics now reign supreme, and what the future holds for a Western world increasingly defined by darker, more guarded visions of governance.

I. The Light Aesthetic: Wilsonian and Reaganite Optimism in Western Politics

For much of the 20th and early 21st centuries, light aesthetics were foundational to both left-wing and right-wing ideologies in the U.S. and across the Western world. Wilsonian optimism presented a progressive, internationalist vision that saw America as a moral leader, promoting democracy, human rights, and global cooperation. Rooted in ideals of global justice and interconnectedness, this aesthetic communicated a vision of inclusivity and progress, resonating with audiences who believed in the inevitability of democratic expansion and human rights.

Conservative light aesthetics found their voice in Reaganite optimism, celebrating the American Dream, individual liberty, and economic freedom. Reagan’s vision, rooted in free markets and limited government, offered an image of a proud, resilient America brimming with self-confidence, unity, and the promise of prosperity for all. This aesthetic portrayed America as a “city upon a hill,” a beacon of hope and freedom for the world, emphasizing traditional values as integral to national greatness.

Both Wilsonian and Reaganite aesthetics shared an underlying faith in America’s exceptionalism and its role as a positive force in the world. They also reflected an era of Western political thought that held universalism, growth, and idealism at its core. However, as the complexities of global interconnectedness, economic upheaval, and cultural fragmentation became more apparent in the 2000s, these light aesthetics began to lose their appeal. The Western public, increasingly concerned with identity, security, and the immediate realities of global crises, began to look for alternatives that would speak to their need for resilience and stability.

II. The Dark “End of History”: The Definitive Defeat of Light Aesthetics in the 2024 Election

The 2024 election in the U.S. marked the culmination of a decade-long struggle between light and dark political aesthetics. The contest began in earnest in the early 2000s, as light-leaning leaders strove to maintain their ideals in the face of rising populist sentiment, concerns over immigration, economic insecurity, and cultural polarization. The ideological divide reached a turning point with Donald Trump’s first term, which made clear the growing appeal of dark aesthetics grounded in nationalism, security, and economic protectionism.

By 2024, the defeat of light aesthetics was complete. Progressive voices espousing ideals of inclusivity, internationalism, and social justice found it difficult to resonate with a public increasingly concerned with security, identity, and cultural preservation. On the conservative side, calls for a return to the American Dream and unrestrained free-market optimism felt insufficient to address the more pressing anxieties about national identity and global power. Voters, disillusioned with what they saw as the na?ve promises of both progressive and conservative light aesthetics, turned decisively toward candidates who projected a darker, more protective vision of America’s future.

This shift signaled to the Western world that the era of light aesthetics was effectively over. The 2024 election was more than a simple electoral choice; it was a cultural pivot that rejected the idea that hope and idealism alone could provide a roadmap for an uncertain world.

III. The Rise of Dark Aesthetics Across the Western World

The triumph of dark aesthetics in the U.S. has already begun to influence political movements throughout the Western world. These aesthetics, grounded in resilience, security, and a hard-nosed realism, are quickly gaining traction as the new norm in Western political discourse.

Right-Wing Dark: Protectionist Patriotism

On the right, protectionist patriotism has emerged as a potent force. This aesthetic emphasizes national sovereignty, cultural identity, and the need to safeguard traditional values against internal and external threats. In the U.S., protectionist patriotism focuses on strengthening the state to enforce borders, protect citizens, and defend American heritage. It employs militaristic imagery, austere colors, and symbols of strength and resilience, casting the nation as a fortress that must remain vigilant.

This vision resonates with right-wing movements across Europe, where populist parties and leaders are advocating similar measures against immigration, globalism, and perceived cultural dilution. Already influential in countries like Hungary, Poland, and France, this aesthetic suggests that dark right-wing politics, with their emphasis on defense and sovereignty, will gain further traction as more nations adopt a similarly protective stance.

Left-Wing Dark: Defensive Progressivism

On the left, defensive progressivism has taken shape as a response to concerns about economic inequality, environmental crises, and systemic injustice. This aesthetic calls for a proactive, interventionist state to protect citizens from corporate exploitation, ecological threats, and political corruption. It is less concerned with projecting an idealized future and more focused on addressing immediate crises, employing a somber palette and symbols of resilience to communicate its seriousness and urgency.

This aesthetic parallels the rise of leftist movements in Europe that emphasize environmental protection, social justice, and economic regulation. Defensive progressivism mirrors left-leaning parties in countries like Germany, France, and the Nordic states, where a commitment to environmental and social resilience is rapidly replacing past ideals of globalism and unity.

IV. The Decline of Light Aesthetics: Lessons from the British Whigs

The “strange death” of light aesthetics in Western politics mirrors the decline of the Whig Party in 19th-century Britain. The Whigs, once dominant, lost relevance as they failed to address the shifting social and political dynamics of the industrial era. Similarly, light aesthetics in Western politics now appear out of sync with a public increasingly concerned with immediate threats and the need for resilience.

This shift suggests that light aesthetics may soon occupy a marginal position, much like the Whigs did in British politics. The ideals of internationalism, economic optimism, and moral universalism no longer resonate with a populace facing anxieties that feel more pressing and urgent. As dark aesthetics come to the forefront, those who still espouse light values may find themselves sidelined, their influence diminished in favor of competing visions centered on defense and survival.

V. Future Contestation: Right-Wing Dark vs. Left-Wing Dark in Western Politics

Looking ahead, the political landscape appears poised for a contest between two dominant dark aesthetics: right-wing protectionist patriotism and left-wing defensive progressivism. These two approaches, though distinct, share a common skepticism of the light ideals that once formed the bedrock of Western political thought.

• Right-Wing Dark: This vision prioritizes a secure, cohesive nation that resists external influences. It advocates for strict border controls, the preservation of cultural identity, and a strong state to uphold order.
• Left-Wing Dark: This vision centers on protecting citizens and the environment from systemic threats, including climate change and corporate power, emphasizing a regulatory state focused on shielding the public good.

As dark aesthetics define the political landscape, these two ideologies are likely to clash. Right-wing dark emphasizes cultural preservation, while left-wing dark focuses on structural reform and social equity. This division represents more than an ideological difference; it reflects an aesthetic choice that pits defense of tradition against protection from systemic injustices, shaping the future of Western politics.

VI. Conclusion: The Global Implications of Dark Aesthetics

The 2024 U.S. Presidential Election signified the triumph of dark aesthetics over light in American politics, a shift with profound implications for the entire Western world. As America’s transformation influences other Western democracies, we may witness a similar rise in dark aesthetics across Europe and beyond. This emerging landscape reflects a Western world moving toward a more defensive, vigilant stance, grounded in the need for security, resilience, and protection.

While light ideals may endure in niche movements, their influence on mainstream politics is likely to diminish, much as the Whigs faded from British politics. The strange death of light aesthetics signals a new era in which geointellectual power is defined by competing visions of darkness, each striving to shape public sentiment and reinforce values of stability, defense, and survival. This transformation will redefine the character of Western politics for decades to come, creating a world in which ideals of unity and optimism are replaced by narratives of protection and resilience.

To navigate this transformed political landscape, an understanding of political aesthetics becomes essential for grasping the geointellectual authority that underpins contemporary geoeconomic strategies. Political aesthetics are not mere byproducts of ideological shifts; they are integral to how power is projected, perceived, and contested. In an era where narratives of protection, stability, and resilience dominate, states, firms, and individuals seeking to survive and thrive must cultivate a deep awareness of these aesthetic dimensions. Geointellectual power—the power to shape worldviews, influence perceptions, and mobilize public sentiment—relies on aesthetics as much as on policy or resources. Just as light aesthetics once served to unify and inspire with visions of global cooperation and prosperity, dark aesthetics now shape the framework within which strategic decisions are made. For those engaged in geoeconomic strategy, this new aesthetic terrain requires an adaptation to narratives of vigilance and defense, as these will define the environment in which geoeconomic influence is pursued and maintained in the coming decades.

* Jens Hillebrand Pohl, PhD, Secretary-General of the Singapore Geoeconomics Forum