Final answer:
The desire for a basic ruler with a firm gasp on all aspects of life emerged after World War I as a means of fostering stability and preventing another catastrophic conflict. This sentiment was amplified by the chaos of the inter-war period and the rise of authoritarian regimes. Figures such as Edmund Burke advocated for a traditional ruler's stabilizing influence over mass democracy, which was blamed for previous unrest and revolutions.
Step-by-step explanation:
The concept of having a basic ruler with a firm gasp on all aspects of life resonates with the era preceding World War I, where the buildup of military alliances and the awakening of nationalist movements created a precarious balance that ultimately failed to prevent war. In the context of the post-war era, particularly after the Treaty of Versailles, the idea of a strong, singular ruler as a bulwark against future conflicts gained appeal among those eager to avoid a repeat of such massive destruction. The notion that a single, perhaps autocratic ruler, could stabilize a nation and prevent future wars appealed to some, especially in the chaotic and uncertain inter-war period. This was a reaction to the perceived ineffectiveness and corruption of democratic politicians, as can be seen in the rise of authoritarian regimes across Europe.
Moreover, the idea of a ruler with a firm gasp might also relate to the theory proposed by people like Edmund Burke, who valued the stabilizing force of tradition over what he saw as the dangerous unpredictability of mass democracy. This preference for a traditional ruler or ruling class to maintain order and prevent chaos was also a critique against the bloody revolutions and the ensuing political instability experienced in Europe. Thus, the appeal of a basic ruler with a strong grip on power is a reflection of people's desire for stability, especially in times of social and political upheaval that have the potential to ignite wars.