Jordan Smith on Diggins’ Why Niebuhr Now?

Smith writes:

Ever alert to the perils of fanaticism, as well as undue optimism or bleak pessimism, Niebuhr remained a small-d democrat who prioritized the possible over the ideal through his various political incarnations. And yet the problem with balanced thought is that it can easily be manipulated. Niebuhr’s principles were so elastic and general that they can be plausibly interpreted and applied in nearly infinite ways.

As an example, he uses the Libya intervention:

It should come as no surprise that Niebuhr’s spirit has been invoked in a variety of conflicting ways in our current Libyan crisis. David Brooks of the New York Times cast the intervention as Niebuhrian on the grounds that it was done reluctantly, (at least originally) with the modest goal of stopping an impending massacre, and with an awareness of the moral complexities on the ground. At the same time, in the American Prospect, Adam Serwer made the case that it was anti-Niebuhrian. The intervention, he argued, was justified by the purity of its intentions, and President Obama invoked American exceptionalism, both ideas Niebuhr persistently opposed. Similarly, even while writing that “pressing Niebuhr into service on behalf of any and all causes will make him irrelevant,” Andrew Bacevich has appropriated the pastor on behalf of anti-interventionism, calling him a “prophet” who foresaw that America would fall prey to its messianic instincts. Ultimately, though, Niebuhr’s diversity and unpredictability make applying his thought with any precision to contemporary problems an impossibility. The answer to the question “What would Niebuhr say?” is: We don’t know.