[Guest post by DRJ]
In a 2007 New York Times’ interview with David Brooks, Presidential candidate Barack Obama named Reinhold Niebuhr as one of his favorite philosophers:
“Out of the blue I asked, “Have you ever read Reinhold Niebuhr?”
Obama’s tone changed. “I love him. He’s one of my favorite philosophers.”
So I asked, What do you take away from him?
“I take away,” Obama answered in a rush of words, “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.”
My first impression was that for a guy who’s spent the last few months fund-raising, and who was walking off the Senate floor as he spoke, that’s a pretty good off-the-cuff summary of Niebuhr’s “The Irony of American History.” My second impression is that his campaign is an attempt to thread the Niebuhrian needle, and it’s really interesting to watch.”
Niebuhr was born in 1892 and died in 1971 and is known as a Christian realist. As a young pastor in Detroit in the 1920’s, Niebuhr was a critic of the adverse effects of industrialism on workers and opposed the Ku Klux Klan. He was also a pacifist who became a proponent of “just wars.”
CNN recently featured an article on how “Obama’s favorite theologian shaped his first year in office” that begins with Niebuhr’s Serenity Prayer:
“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,” he began, “the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.”
The article paints both Obama and Niebuhr as tough but fair critics of greed, complacency, and evil. It’s only at the end of the article that the reporter offers a contrasting view from former Senator and Espiscopal priest John Danforth: “I see in Obama’s approach to politics, which is surprisingly partisan and ideological, a hubris that is not Niebuhrian.”
However, Obama’s view of America is decidedly Niebuhrian. Both view America as quixotic — at times exceptional but often exceptionally flawed. Not surprisingly, so did Obama’s former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who read and studied Niebuhr and — as evidenced by his “God Damn America” speech and others — echoed Niebuhr’s message that warned of the dangers of American hegemony:
“Niebuhr, then, encouraged Christians to prevent international catastrophe by criticizing their own nations’ policies criticisms of American policies. In an era when some are calling for a foreign policy of “benevolent hegemony,” [Jeremiah] Wright’s message of remembering our faults is especially timely. Neocons maintain that:
“The aspiration to benevolent hegemony might strike some as either hubristic or morally suspect. But a hegemon is nothing more or less than a leader with preponderant influence and authority over all others in its domain. That is America’s position in the world today.”
Contrast this with the words of Niebuhr:
“The world cannot be organized by an Anglo-Saxon hegemony. Such a leadership could be ten times more just than the Nazis were and yet not be just enough to avoid arousing the resentment of Europe and Asia, in fact, of the entire world.”
On economic matters, Niebuhr was more of a socialist who accepted qualified capitalism but viewed American business and businessmen as heartless and greedy. Niebuhr himself railed against “the ridiculous dogma of laissez faire” and, as explained by E.J. Dionne, Niebuhr’s views sound a lot like President Obama’s:
“When Niebuhr tried to give concrete content to his notion of justice, he instinctively thought about equalizing standards of living, reducing job insecurity and enacting social insurance schemes.”
Both Niebuhr and Obama were conflicted by the inherent inconsistencies of politics and life and, as Brooks suggested, Obama is trying to thread the needle in Niebuhrian fashion. Ultimately, both frame the conflict as a battle between moral workers and immoral businesses … and both are willing to do whatever it takes to see to it that workers win.
— DRJ