Senior ‘American School’ International Relations theorists — John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, Robert Keohane, and others — have evinced a growing concern about a rise of technocratic hypothesis-testing, and a parallel decline in grand theory. We share many of their concerns; yet, we also find such discussions deeply unsatisfying. Grand theory descends into ‘technocracy’ because of reifying and depoliticizing processes deeply woven into both thought and the academic vocation. While confronting such processes is possible, these same scholars are among those who dismiss — and have long dismissed — the key intellectual moves that would sustain such a confrontation. That infelicitous combination, we argue, is unlikely to produce a renaissance of grand theory; indeed, past precedent suggests that it will further stifle it. To suggest how these theorists might better revalorize grand theory, we develop disciplinary-historical case studies around two key research programs: neo-functionalism and structural liberalism. Both were the product of an abiding commitment to grand theory; yet, both fell into reified and depoliticized stances that left little space for such theory. Breaking that cycle of reification and depoliticization might yet be possible; but it will require thinking beyond the call for ‘more grand theory.’