Repairing Paris on the Potomac
As conservatives adapt to the new realities of wielding power, we must work to restore Washington’s lost grandeur.
Joseph William Wozniak is a master’s student in Democracy and Governance at Georgetown University.
Few cities in the inspire such mixed emotions as Washington, D.C. Some cities, like Paris or New York, tend to evoke either love or hate — there is little room for ambivalence. Washington defies such a stark binary. Its architecture and civic ethos, shaped by its role as the federal district, project a grandeur that feels both imposed and aspirational. The city was envisioned as an heir to Rome, a physical manifestation of the Founding generation’s ideal — a republic dedicated to civic virtue, social order, individual merit, and the relentless pursuit of human excellence.
The Right does not need another piece on “beautiful architecture,” which is why a particular focus on reviving the federal district — the seat of our national pride and civic religion — is necessary. As conservatives adapt to the new realities of wielding power, we must work to restore Washington’s lost grandeur. The city is meant to represent the very best of America. Its modern economic growth, driven by government spending and real estate speculation, at least suggests prosperity. Yet, in recent decades, the capital has long failed to live up to its noble purpose as the seat of American republicanism. Forget the dream of a “Paris on the Potomac.” On some days, it feels more like a surreal, retro-futuristic East Berlin.
The visual manifestation of cultural Marxism and leftism that has overtaken and rejected the Founders’ vision for the nation’s capital. In their egotistical pursuit of dominance, Washington’s architects and leading critics have narrowed the possibilities for genuine achievement in design. Gone are the days when architecture was understood as a tool for human uplift; dare to promote it as such, and you will be dismissed as advocating for a “Disneylandification” of the past.
Neoclassicism has been systematically deconstructed, thanks in part to figures such as "starchitect" I.M. Pei, whose work, lauded by bureaucratic and business elites for decades, helped push classical design to the fringes of architectural debate.
As a student living and working in Washington, D.C., contradictions are embedded in the city’s landscape every day. The necessity of projecting aesthetic unity in the nation’s capital has given way to a corrosive architectural scene over the common good. Buildings are designed with no regard for coherence, resulting in a cityscape littered with jarring stylistic contradictions. Some of these structures possess artistic and aesthetic merit in isolation. The problem is that cities do not function as disconnected fragments.
Cities should be understood as living ecosystems, bound by an underlying sense of temperance — a shared vision of the good life and how it should be pursued. A meaningful critique of the urban environment requires a holistic approach, one that avoids engaging with architecture in a way that is both pedantic and myopic. This is why reviving Washington must also center on restoring law and order and good governance to the city. Inspirational architecture is useless without the backing of a sound political order. The city should be returned to administration by the federal government, as opposed to home rule, like President Trump has recently suggested.
This revival should be carried out in accordance with the vision set forth by the L’Enfant Plan and later reinforced through the McMillan Plan and the Height of Buildings Act. A crucial aspect of this renewal is the revival of neoclassicism — a style that, as Justin Shubow of the National Civic Art Society has noted, is the true architecture of American democracy.
Federal architecture policy may not be the flashiest political issue, but it presents a powerful opportunity for the Right. There is no better illustration of conservatism’s superiority over progressivism than the contrast between neoclassical and modernist design. While both styles emphasize different values — neoclassicism privileging beauty over expression — it is hardly subjective to say that one better embodies the ideals of American civilization.
Neoclassicism endures because neoclassicism is eternal. Its simplicity invites grandeur. Its emphasis on order and symmetry fosters clarity and cohesion. The humanism embedded in classical and neoclassical sculpture not only reaffirms a sense of eros but also celebrates the boundless potential of human achievement. In an age defined by the ethos of modernity, we need new aesthetic movements that affirm our humanity — movements that glorify the perfected, natural human form. Failing to act would amount to nothing less than the suicide of any self-respecting Christian anthropology.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider becoming a patron of our publication! Your enthusiasm and support means a lot to all of us at The American Postliberal — and we promise we’ll work hard for your investment in our project.
 |
|