Is Obama Niebuhrian?
Theologians tend to find it interesting when political figures invoke the name of some theologian. That is why many ears perked up when Obama claimed to have read and been influenced by Reinhold Niebuhr.
Perhaps this is surprising to many of us because theologians don’t seem to serve a particularly important function in contemporary politics–unless, of course, you’re willing to count Rick Warren or Dobson among the theologians. Of course, political speeches often invoke names and it is not at all unusual to allude to some famous and universally well-regarded religious figure. Indeed, a lot of energy goes into finding the right theo-religio-rhetoric to employ in a political speech. But, it seems to me that it is more rare to find a political figure actually invoking the name of an academic theologian. I suppose this says much about the place of academic theology in U.S. politics and the place of academic theology in popular culture in general. Back in the day it seems like folks like Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr were not only respected scholars, but they were something like rockstars at a popular level and among the political and cultural elite. We simply don’t have a Tillich or a Niebuhr today.
There has been some commentary on Obama’s relationship to Niebuhr. One particularly bad one on Speaking of Faith featuring David Brooks a conservative columnist for The New York Times, E.J. Dionne a liberal columnist at The Washington Post, and an invocation by the neoconservative theologian Jean Bethke Elshtain. So, it came as a bit of a relief to see this wonderful post on Niebuhr and Obama by the always brilliant and balanced Gary Dorrien at The Immanent Frame. In this post Dorrien distinguishes between the many competing Niebuhrs–t
he liberal, moderate, conservative, radical, and even neoconservative interpretations of Niebuhr–in order to situate Obama’s alleged Niebuhrianism. Against the neoconservative (mis)appropriation of Niebuhr, Dorrien rightly states, “If the neocons had absorbed even half of Niebuhr’s realism, we might have been spared the very bad idea of invading Iraq.” In Dorrien’s assessment, “the key to Niebuhr, and to Obama’s interest in him, is the idea of combining a realistic understanding of politics and human nature with a religiously inspired idealism.” For Obama, according to Dorrien, Niebuhr symbolizes the “possibility of a progressive realism that defends America’s interests more prudently and advances the cause of social justice.” Both figures “blend liberal internationalist and realist motifs, contending that multilateral cooperation is compatible with the power-seeking clash of nations. The case for a strong international community has a realistic basis, that the benefits of cooperation outweigh the costs and risks of not working together. All parties are better off when the most powerful nations agree not to do everything that is in their power and nations work together to create new forms of collective security.”
I think this is entirely correct. Now I am no Niebuhrian–in fact, rarely do I agree with Niebuhr, especially when it comes to politics. But I think Dorrien is correct on this and indeed such a politics strikes me as a much better way forward than the last eight years. In seems that in Dorrien’s perspective Obama actually knows his Niebuhr quite well and to at least some extent is faithful to Niebuhr. If only our politicians would take seriously the opinion of Time Magazine and read a little more of “America’s Best Theologian.”









Recent Comments