Obama's favorite philosopher is, according to him, Reinhold Niebuhr. What is interesting about that is, Reinhold Niebuhr, throughout the course of a very long career, changed his mind with every successive decade. In the 1910's he was pro-American and pro-war. In the 1920's, he was a pacifist. In the 1930's, he was a socialist. In the 1940's, he was apparently a centrist Democrat. In the 1950's, he was an anti-communist who believed in the policy of containment. In the 1960's, he was a pacifist again, somewhat, staking out a position against the Vietnam War and promoting a philosophy of tolerance towards the Soviet Union, claiming the anti-communist movement had been hi-jacked by ideologues. What do all of these stands have in common, besides a seeming divergence with every new decade? Well, they all seem to be outgrowths of what is termed Christian Realism. His philosophy might best be encapsulated by the Serenity Prayer, which he authored.
But how exactly has he influenced Obama? Though some might proclaim it to be a positive influence, might there be other, less beneficent aspects, at least when applied to the political realm?
Niebuhr believed in international cooperation as the best means of attaining national goals and in the spreading and furtherance of American and Western ideals. He disavowed the idealism of most church philosophies of his day, which he charged took man's divine rights and inherent goodness too much for granted. However, he also loathed the inclination of many demagogues who would pursue a might makes right policy. He believed in cooperation, and a kind of carrot-and-stick approach, seemingly with an emphasis on the carrot. Democracy and social justice, he claimed, could be fostered and encouraged, and rewarded, but they could never be forced. Nor did he deem it accurate to suppose that because we believe our way was the best way, that everyone else would necessarily follow suit and adopt Western-American values. That might happen over time, with the proper encouragement and patience. It might never happen.
Many see this philosophy expressed in Obama's recent trip to Cairo and his address from there to the Arab world. America is not always right, nor are her enemies always evil. Almost every word from the speech could have been written by Reinhold Niebuhr. Frankly, there is much to Niebuhrs approach to foreign affairs I can concur with, up to a point, but in this case, it seems odd to spell out such a philosophy openly in an address to such a large segment of the world population, many of with whom we are, like it or not, at war. It seems to reek of the kind of air-headed idealism, minus pragmatic considerations, which Niebuhr himself reportedly deplored.
Interestingly, much of Niebuhr's approach to domestic politics seems drawn from the same philosophy. He knew early on there was going to be increasing racial tensions. His prescribed method of dealing with the eventuality was to encourage the majority to reach out to the minority populations. I have found no indications as to his beliefs as to how minority peoples should respond. He seems to intimate that it will take time, in the form of successive generations, to heal the breach. Of course, we have seen this philosophy expressed multiple times through the filter of leftist progressive politics. While Obama, for perhaps self-conscious reasons, has refrained from this, we have still seen it expressed in other ways, like for example AG Eric Holders denunciation of the self-segregation that envelops society on so many levels and his expressed call for a national dialogue on race in order to deal with it.
Earlier in his career, Niebuhr was a staunch supporter of the union movement, and a harsh critic of Henry Ford, disparaging Ford's assembly line method of automobile production and the loss of real income to Ford's workers, due to inflation and to reduced work hours.
Niebuhr has followers among all branches of politics-liberal, radical, conservative, and even among the neocons. He himself was unabashedly political, yet he was, again, a "Christian Realist" in his approach to problems and policies. Nevertheless, he was unquestioningly liberal in almost all of his incarnations. The following snippet of a critique leveled at a conservative foe of the "Welfare State", during the nineteen fifties, says it all-
Mr. Russell Kirk in his Conservative Mind seems to assume that there is some authentic conservatism in the mere desire to preserve the status quo of the American paradise; and he rather uncritically seeks to relate this American conservatism with a British conservatism which is rooted in the aristocratic tradition and has none of Kirk’s prejudice against the Welfare State, and with the rather pathetic aristocratic tradition of our own Southland, as expounded by Randolph and Calhoun. This Southern tradition was pathetic because it was but a remnant of an old aristocratic society in a nation which had no conscious relations with the European feudal past, and because it was a form of aristocracy based upon chattel slavery and was naturally destroyed with the institution of slavery.
Note that the policy of the Mr. Kirk in question had nothing to do with the nascent Civil Rights movement of the day, had nothing to do with race relations in any fashion-it was simply a matter of limiting the growth of the federal government, and keeping it in check. Mr. Niehbuhr might well have fathered the tactic of conflating the conservative philosophy of low taxes and small government to racism and bigotry, and all of its later and equally foul brethren, such as accusatory slurs as to sexism and homophobia.
In other words, such charges, whether leveled yesterday or today, are not reasoned responses based on science or empirical observation towards a coherent understanding of ones ideological opponents. They are, at best, emotional excrement, based on attachments to the ideals and theories of a Christian philosopher who adapted his philosophy, along with his strategies, to suit the times or the situation.
It takes the following formula-
A. The Antebellum South owned slaves and fought to defend its rights to keep them
and to expand those rights into other territories.
B. Modern conservatives believe in states rights against encroachments by an ever growing and expanding federal government
Therefore-
C. Modern conservatives are racists and bigots. They are also sexists and homophobes.
And thus turns logic completely on its head.
This then is the natural outgrowth of the Christian Realism movement.
In his own day, Reinhold was criticized for such rhetoric, as well as for his liberal progressive views, with much the same tenor that an Anne Coulter or Glenn Beck today might tear into a Keith Olbermann, and for much the same reasons. His is a philosophy based on a religious principle, but with political applications. Not unlike Nietzche in many ways, it is indeed a kind of "Realism" in approach, yet seasoned with a dash of ethics and morals, at least on the surface. Simmering at the bottom of the stew, however, is the same kind of moralizing prejudice-Judgementality, if you will-modern progressives so readily decry in their opponents. It doesn't take a lot to bring it erupting to the surface, as we have seen innumerable times. It also doesn't take long to reveal a liberal progressive who proclaims his love for democracy, tolerance, and free speech, for the unmitigated hypocrite he truly is.
When it comes to politics, at least and especially as it involves foreign affairs, an extra dose of Nietzche might be the more appropriate formula. As for domestic situations, there again, a greater emphasis on pragmatic approaches with less emphasis on high-minded idealism is more in-line with the attainment of realistic goals.
