I'm about a third of the way through The Irony of American History, and one thing I don't understand is how any national politician could ever cite Niebuhr as any sort of influence. That is too categorical. What I'm trying to say is this book seems to be a call for a national humility, a broad caution against a kind of state-sponsored rationalist utopianism, as well as caution against the sort of "American Exceptionalism" that's basically taken as a given for anyone running for president. Am I reading this wrong? It seems to be president you have to not simply be proud of your country, but believe that it virtually on a mission from God. Is Niebuhr just another MLK? Some guy people shout-out because it sounds good, meanwhile ignoring the persons more politically unpopular opinions? Again, I'm only a third of the way through. I could have this wrong.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
...a call for a national humility, a broad caution against a kind of state-sponsored rationalist utopianism, as well as caution against the sort of "American Exceptionalism"
In other words: A traditionally conservative foreign policy. I'm talking "small c" conservatism here, not that abomination that is Republican Conservatism.
Niebuhr raises a lot of compelling point and should be required reading for anyone interested in international relations.
foreign policy.
Tyler -
That kind of foreign policy hasn't existed in America for over a hundred years.
I think you're right, Ta-Nehsi.
Well you have definitely sold me on reading the book. Politicians like that get roundly mocked and criticized and have their message distorted.
see: Ron Paul
Though it was only a small factor towards my vote I personally saw rev. wright as a feature not a bug.
Not necessarily wrong, but perhaps too literal.
"Irony" is in the title for good reason. If you don't read too far beyond that core truth and don't try to impose your own values on this great little book, you probably will better appreciate it. America already had drifted pretty far from the shore when the book was written in 1952; today of course it is well out to sea.
As for everyone and their uncle citing it, they're just trying to act smart.
"That kind of foreign policy hasn't existed in America for over a hundred years."
I know it hasn't, that's why Niebuhr's words seem so revolutionary, even though they come from a very well-established and traditional school of thought.
It's also an indictment of just how far off the rails our foreign policy has drifted since the Great War.
Neibuhr wasn't arguing for not trying big things in foreign affairs. He was arguing for systematically knowing you could screw it up, and organizing your thinking to spot dangers inside your own brain as well as outside.
"Some guy people shout-out because it sounds good, meanwhile ignoring the persons more politically unpopular opinions?"
Bingo, TNC. Most people can't be bothered to actually read Neibuhr's writing. Didn't both Obama and McCain cite him as an influence? Seems that cherry-picking from anyone's writing can be used to justify all manner of viewpoints.
It reminds me of fundamentalist Christians who go nuts for C.S. Lewis because they really liked "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" and never bothered to read any of this other work, which is rather less consistent with their theology than they would realize.
I think there is some kind of "spiritual capital" that is earned when folks cite Niebuhr but it is, as you allude TNC, a bit of a show. But besides Obama, what other politicians have claimed Niebuhr as intellectual influence?
Regardless, I would like to know WHICH Niebuhr they've read. Is it "Irony" or "Moral Man" or his magnum opus "Nature and Destiny of Man"? I say this because Niebuhr is a complicated figure especially on foreign policy because he changed his views quite a bit. But the main theme of Niebuhrian thought, as I've read it, has been about the finitude of humankind and his/her penchant for evil. This is something that he shares with his buddy Paul Tillich (whom I prefer and read more of). It is from this dual position of finitude and evil of humanity that I think Niebuhr articulates his "caution" as so many of you have pointed out.
A note on Niebuhr and MLK: The last chapter of Moral Man, Immoral Society basically calls for a figure like MLK to renew political ethics in the US. I remember reading in Branch's bio that King had studied Niebuhr pretty damn thoroughly.
it also says power corrupts you as you obtain and use it and you should be mindful of it. i dont remember politicians saying anything like that. at least not during a campaign. could you imaginge bush or clinton admitting such a thing? i think the best acknowledgment we got of that was accounts of LBJ's midnight nightmares in the last days before he resigned
'how far off the rails we've drifted since the Great War'
If by Great War, you mean War of 1812, then I'm sure you can get Mexico and the rest of Latin America to agree with you; otherwise, more history lessons are in order.
Deleted for thread-jacking.
Synchronicity hits all over today. I'd almost forgotten about Niebuhr when reminded this morning by the biography of William Sloane Coffin -- for whom reading Niebuhr helped the army veteran/Yale student make sense of his experiences in WWII and turned him into the Episcopal priest/civil rights/antiwar icon that most remember.
Also not the most humble sort (neither was Niebuhr.) Like all of us he contained multitudes.
If by Great War, you mean War of 1812, then I'm sure you can get Mexico and the rest of Latin America to agree with you; otherwise, more history lessons are in order.
I was referring to World War I. Much of the world (particularly in Europe) refers to it as The Great War.
Point of clarification: We've never practiced a humble foreign policy in our near-abroad (read Latin America, or the parts of Mexico which were annexed by the US in the Mexican-American War), I'm referring more towards foreign policy vis-a-vis the great powers.
It reminds me of fundamentalist Christians who go nuts for C.S. Lewis because they really liked "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" and never bothered to read any of this other work, which is rather less consistent with their theology than they would realize.
I haven't read Niebuhr, so I can't really speak to the comparison, but the thing about a guy like Lewis is that his work is eminently cherry-pickable, and at times he worked very hard at being the kind of "intellectual" who is most useful to a certain kind of proselytizing effort. (Actually, I think his work appeals to a couple of distinct strains within Christianity: the bookish kids with ever-so-slightly-edgy taste in art who also dug Tolkien, and a set of people who are just looking for a good fuzzy lowbrow apologetic, of which Mere Christianity must be one of the finest specimens ever produced. I suppose there's overlap.)
Per other comments here, maybe Niebuhr is just as self-contradictory in his own way. I'll bow out of this thread and think about getting me to a library...
Tyler,
I think you missed luis' point, there. It goes back way before WWI.
Andrew:
I'm not debating Luis's point, just clarifying what The Great War is.
Neibuhr came from a long tradition of German and American Protestant theologians. I think even reading Neibuhr out of context from the Tubingen School is a little problematic. The Scars of the Thirty years war run deep there, and his father came to America to avoid Prussian nationalism.
I would also encourage people to read Richard Neibuhr, Reinhold's younger brother. Both Christ and Culture and The Responsible Self are helpful in framing the culture war debates.
Brennen, given that Mere Christianity started out (I believe) as a series of radio addresses, I don't doubt that Lewis was inclined toward evangelism. That being said, he also veered close to universalism in The Great Divorce, and even some of the later Narnia books indicate some disagreement with the Christian doctrine of exclusive salvation.
Niebuhr's idea of Christian Realism is what Obama and the rest of the bunch cling to. As a Christian minister, I see what attracts him to the idea--it helps him rationalize doing things which he sees as immoral, so that he can exercise his power without fear of judgment from God (or, as the case may be, feeling guilty). But again, as a minister, I think that all the politicians invoking Niebuhr miss the forest for the trees, as you note above.
It is almost as if we are now two steps away from idealism, rather than Niebuhr's one. That is, Niebuhr says that idealism doesn't work, and governments have to exercise power. He justifies this statement with the caveats you have mentioned: a condemnation of American exceptionalism, a profound concern for the marginalized, and a recognition that no utopia (American, Christian, or otherwise) can exist on earth. What Obama and the rest of the politicians are doing, I think, are using taking the cracks that Niebuhr placed into Christian idealism and driving a wedge into them, so that now, any kind of behavior is justified in Niebuhr's name, as long as said politician sees the behavior as in his or her best interest, and ostensibly in the interest of the country.
As to this point of Christian realism, Niebuhr has a point, I think. That is, Obama's job is to exercise power, and my job is a minister is to counter that power by working for peace in all situations. But Niebuhr would tell both of us, I think, that each act must be done in profound humility. I think Niebuhr would also argue that that humility would preclude justifying *anything* in Niebuhr's name, because when you start justifying, you've begun with yourself, and thus you've already missed the point.
That said, politicians who aspire to be good leaders and good Christians need to read more Bonhoeffer and less Niebuhr.
Dan-
Those criticisms of Lewis' theological purity are only valid if you buy the premise that Lewis was aiming for strict allegorical coherence to conservative orthodoxy.l He wasn't. The books are poetic and pastoral and literary in nature, and even he said don't use them for teaching doctrine.
"Within a given story any object, person, or place is neither more nor less, nor other, than what that story effectively shows it to be."
Since 'American Exceptionalism' can be defined in any number of ways, I'm not going to take that up. But any book that makes a broad call for caution against a kind of state-sponsored rationalist utopianism, gets a thumbs up from this Conservative. That is the fundamental lesson that we keep trying to teach. But when Jonah Goldberg says so, y'all get hysterical.
There is an essay in The Atlantic's American Idea anthology released last year written by Niebuhr called the Perils of American Power, which is pretty succinct in his warnings of exporting our values via commerce and military. And this was in 1932, predating 'Irony' by twenty years. His concern stems from our development as a nation based on business and technological advances (made possible by advantageous geography, among other things, that led to relative peacefulness and stability compared to most parts of the world); I need to re-read it again, but you can imagine the problems he perceived with this perspective as it becomes applied to relations with other countries (mainly the fetishizing of industry as a path toward blissful ignorance and bewilderment when other countries who continue to struggle to develop refuse to kiss our ring upon our entering the room/country).
Dan - Oh, definitely. I'm in complete agreement that Lewis would make lots and lots of fundamentalists (including particularly the Focus on the Family types who have worked so hard to appropriate him) remarkably uncomfortable if they were paying much attention at all. I just meant to highlight that, from a distance, he's not that hard to use for fundamentalist purposes. Though I think it backfires here and there: The Great Divorce was such an influence on how I thought about the afterlife as a kid that it pretty well inoculated me against the requisite fear of eternal damnation.
Wallyz, as a recovering fundamentalist, I have no beef with your point. But regardless of Lewis's intent, that's exactly what's ended up happening. Because the death/resurrection allegory is so apparent, "Lion, Witch" has become a major part of the fundamentalist "canon," if such a thing could be said to exist. While I don't read Lewis that way, I think many readers do, for better or for worse.
Wasnt't there an article in a recent Atlantic dealing with this subject?
Brennan-
Really? I took the Great Divorce to be completely literary and meant to be applied here rather than a guide to the after life. I did pick it up right after Screwtape letters. This was when I was about 12-13.
It never occured to me to look at it as a map of the afterlife, anymore than Allegheri is a useful map. It speaks truth about humanity,not about eternity.
The only reason Niebuhr, so far as I know, came up during the campaign in any serious fashion was David Brooks writing an article about how a discussion of Niebuhr's work with Obama resulted in Obama saying:
“I take away the compelling idea that there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away ... the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism.”
It's one of the things I've always liked about Obama: that for all the idealism he seems to personify. I see him as the type of person who recognizes the need to humble oneself. He needs to know what can go wrong, he needs to know the strongest argument against his own beliefs (the best example I know of this is here), and seems surprisingly cognizant of the fact that he might just be wrong on an issue (unheard of in a politician.)
Niebuhr isn't someone you read to form a political philosophy. He's not someone who gives a new or innovative way of distinguishing right from wrong or what should be done about an issue. It's about discovering what CAN be done about an issue; it's about stripping away the high-minded purity of idealism while retaining the passion to do what is right. Many conservatives embrace this as a more mature outlook on politics, but when it actually comes time to live up to a dispassionate form of governance where you concede that identity does not confer with it special rights or abilities, either the politician cannot do it or if they do it they are not going to create the popular support of a populace who DOES believe that our identity makes us better than other people.
So you go along, and if you believe that Niebuhr is right you have to at least fake the outlook people truly want in their representatives. Believe it or not, McCain and Obama are the only two politicians I can think of off the top of my head who HAVE cited Niebuhr; most people really wouldn't look that deeply into Niebuhr to see the fact that he rejects much of political metaphysics. The real lesson people take away from Niebuhr, the need to be realistic while maintaining a moral center to actually accomplish your goals, is what is important to "Georgetown cocktail party conservatives" like me who are happy that he is getting the props he has in the last few years.
Cobb:
Here's the deal with that. I'm not a conservative, (again let's not confuse this with being a Conservative Republican in the modern sense. Calling Republicans conservatives (small C variety) is like saying liberals and Democratic Liberals are one in the same) but I do think classical conservatism raises a lot of compelling points we would - at the very least - be wise to consider in our foreign policy.
That said; people like Jonah Goldberg have twisted and perverted classical conservatism so beyond recognition that the when people say they are horribly offended by the "C Word", they're not talking about the slang term for a woman's anatomy.
Given that this perversion of conservatism has had utterly disastrous results; can you really blame people? I don't and it's a bit depressing because, like I said, I do believe true, classical conservatism does make a lot of very compelling points.
"Niebuhr's idea of Christian Realism is what Obama and the rest of the bunch cling to."
I'll be happy to be proved wrong, but I can't recall Obama bandying about Niebuhr in a public forum. I only recall David Brooks writing about the fact that he got a Chris Matthews like "thrill up his leg" when he mentioned Niebuhr to Obama durnig a phone call and then talked at great length about his works.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Please read the above link. That describes their thoughts behind "The Irony of American History"
Wallyz - This is all, obviously, a bit far afield from the topic at hand, but since you asked: I certainly took TGD as a kind of theological or metaphysical proposition as much as a "literary" one. At the time I first read it, I doubt I would have thought to make the distinction. Mileage varies, of course.
Now I really am going to stop posting in this thread and hie me to a library.
Which is why, Tyler, I think more Conservatives may start hyphenating their conservatism until such time as some Reaganesque titan emerges from the GOP. As for me, that would be Hayekian-
If you are aware of some reasonably intelligent joint where Goldberg has been taken to factual task, I'd appreciate the link, but I think most folks just freak out at the very idea that state-sponsored rationalist utopianism is a fundamental goal of fascism.
Whatever might be said of Goldberg, his message makes very clear the use of 'non-ideological pragmatism' in the fascist toolkit. I mean have you seen that Obama youth video where the black kids were marching in military uniforms reciting Obama's policy planks? (Now pulled from YouTube, hmmm)
Cobb:
Now you've lost me. A couple of overly excited Obama supporters do not a fascist make.
Is this another angle on Ramesh Ponnuru's utterly laughable attempt to equate Liberals with fascism?
Statements like these are the reason nobody takes conservatism seriously anymore.
One last thing on this then I'll stop, lest I run afoul of T-NC's anti thread-jacking policy.
If we're really going to start throwing around the term fascist, then answer me this. Which is more fascist: Excited Obama supporters acting like tools or a party which supports - without presenting ANY evidence or filing any charges - imprisoning, torturing and reserving the right to execute any citizen the government deems a threat?
I hear all this from inside liberal Protestantism. For my faith-and-politics tradition, the whole 20th century is captured in two great poetic emblems.
First, from the social gospel tradition, there's Harry Emerson Fosdick's hymn:
Set our feet on lofty places,
Gird our lives that they may be,
Armored with all Christ-like graces,
In the fight to set men free.
Grant us wisdom, grant us courage,
That we fail not man nor Thee,
That we fail not man nor Thee.
(Full words and passable accompaniment at http://www.cgmusic.com/cghymnal/others/g/godofgrace.htm)
Second, there's knowing that Neibuhr and Fosdick were close friends, deep in liberal politics of the Manhattan variety. Neibuhr's version has always been an extension of the Fosdick hymn and a comment on liberal Christian action:
God, grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
the courage to change the things I can;
and the wisdom to know the difference.
The Neibuhr addition is being prepared to see that some battles can't be won. We can't depose Stalin or make him a nice guy. We can't make Vietnam into Iowa. Doing it right includes always watching for signs that you're in that can't win situation. He doesn't take back an iota of Fosdick's commitment to push when you can make a difference.
(At the moment, there's a newsreel playing in my head of Dr. King saying it's time to leave Albany, Georgia, because this town won't change this year....)
It would not shock me to learn that politicians were citing this dude without ever having read a word he has written. In fact, I doubt most of the people who cite him cannot spell his name.
TN,
Just wanted to recommend Richard Fox's biography of Reinhold Niebuhr. It carefully traces the evolution of his thought.
Just wanted to say,
Thanks for the comments thread. To me, this discussion is why the internet is made.
Niehbur?
Really?
I haven't read him since I got my BA in religion.
I don't remember much about him, and I grew up down the street from Eden Theological Seminary.
I looked him up in Tillich's History of Christian Thought to jog my memory... Given the current ecumenical environment and passage of time, discussions of Roman authoritarianism re ex cathedra pronouncements on the assumption of Mary are seldom at the top of the discussion list these days.
Per the Brooks/Obama conversation about the take away cited by Brian, you could take this away from any number of protestant theologians, maybe even some of the Roman variety.
But it seems as if people are more interested in the political angle than the religious. So I think TNC is right to suspect that the popular American historical process has smoothed the rough edges on Niehbur to the point where he's just "Some guy people shout-out because it sounds good, meanwhile ignoring the persons more politically unpopular opinions" I'll add: Not to mention his actual theology:
I transcribe from Tillich as well as I can type:
I recall asking Reinhold Niebuhr in March, 1950: "What do you think ? Will the pope make this declaration about the assumption of the Holy Virgin ex cathedra? Then he answered: "I don't think so; he is too clever for that.... [SNIP] even such a keen observer as Rheinhold Neibuhr could not imagine that the pope would do such a thing today. But he did it. This means that an authoritarian system has to become more and more narrow in order to fix itself."
Bring up these kinds of old-fashioned arguments today and people will suspect you of juggling snakes -- not that there is anything wrong with that!