Niebuhr and Ideological Conflict

I came across this quote today from Christian Realism and Political Problems (pp. 89-91) and had to write it down.

"Let us take the ideological conflict in modern technical society as an illustration [of the inadequacy of the scientific method in analyzing social and historical forces]. Even where the liberal world is not subject to the Marxist challenge, there is an ideological conflict between the more favored and the less favored members of the community. It is to be noted that in the more healthy societies this conflict does not result in a disruption of the community because it takes place against the background of value systems which do rough justice to both the individual and social dimension of human existence. But the degree to which individuality and individual initiative is cherished on the one hand, and social solidarity and security on the other, is clearly ideological. The bourgeois community tends to be libertarian and the industrial workers tend, even when they are not Marxist, to be equalitarian and collectivist. In this situation it is interesting to note what social science can and cannot do. A careful analysis of social sequences and causalities can refute the more extravagant claims of each side. There is, for instance, a pretty conclusive evidence that an uncontrolled economy does not automatically make for justice, and that a compounding of political and economic power, according to collectivist programs, will threaten both justice and liberty. Those societies in which there is a relative degree of impartial social observation mitigate the ideological conflict, but they cannot eliminate it. They are powerless to do so because of the existential intimacy between interest and idea. The classes which prefer liberty to security are those which already have a high measure of security through their social and professional skills, and who do not like to have their economic power subjected to political power. The classes on the other hand which prefer secuirty to liberty are on the whole devoid of special skills and therefore individual securities; and are exposed to the perils of a highly integrated technical society, and therfore fear insecurity more than they fear the loss of liberty. There can be no scientific dissolution of these preferences. It is probably true that the health of a democratic society depends more upon the spirit of forbearance with which each side tolerates the irreducible ideological preferences of the other than upon some supposed scientific resolution of them, because the scientific resolution always involves the peril that one side or the other will state its preferences as if they were scientifically validated value judgments." (emphasis mine)

Now I know that was one long paragraph, it takes up a page and a half in the book, but give it a chance. The fact that this conflict was stated in "matter of fact" terms that were apparently self-evident in Niebuhr's day, and is merely used to examine another issue really shines a light on how well the children of darkness have obscured the reality of American society. So-called conservatives (Niebuhr refers to them as "bourgeois liberals") have projected their values onto the working class so well that in all official frames they are considered universal. Liberty to proletarians without the security of organization used to mean simply the "freedom to starve," now many proles who in earlier times would know better believe that they can bargain better on their own with the boss when they are wholly expendable and replacable, meaning no leverage whatsoever.

Anyway, enough of the American electorate has internalized these bourgeois values to make an ideology that should be abhorrent to anyone who works for a living palatable. Or at least keeps them from focusing on economic security as a concern above abortion, gay marriage, guns, etc. Perhaps the recent full-court press on skilled professionals by the radical right in Wisconsin, New Jersey, Ohio, Michigan and elsewhere that is shattering economic security for public servants will gain new relevence in the electorate and we can finally draw the line. There is no common ground, there is no compromise; if republicans win, you lose. We are no longer a "healthy society" with a "background of value systems" that balance justice for community and the individual. It is a Brave New World where anyone is fair game.