Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $3.97 shipping
98% positive over last 12 months
+ $3.99 shipping
100% positive over last 12 months
& FREE Shipping
95% positive over last 12 months
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle Cloud Reader.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the Author
OK
The Irony of American History Paperback – May 1, 2008
| Reinhold Niebuhr (Author) Find all the books, read about the author, and more. See search results for this author |
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
|
MP3 CD, Audiobook, MP3 Audio, Unabridged
"Please retry" | $8.11 | $6.99 |
Enhance your purchase
“The supreme American theologian of the twentieth century.”—Arthur Schlesinger Jr., New York Times
“Niebuhr is important for the left today precisely because he warned about America’s tendency—including the left’s tendency—to do bad things in the name of idealism. His thought offers a much better understanding of where the Bush administration went wrong in Iraq.”—Kevin Mattson, The Good Society
“Irony provides the master key to understanding the myths and delusions that underpin American statecraft. . . . The most important book ever written on US foreign policy.”—Andrew J. Bacevich, from the Introduction
- Print length174 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherUniversity of Chicago Press
- Publication dateMay 1, 2008
- Dimensions8.03 x 5.44 x 0.47 inches
- ISBN-100226583996
- ISBN-13978-0226583990
Books with Buzz
Discover the latest buzz-worthy books, from mysteries and romance to humor and nonfiction. Explore more
Frequently bought together

- +
- +
Editorial Reviews
Review
“A blessing of this time of liberation and hope is that serious works of political analysis and philosophy may contribute to the new administration's approach to its daunting agenda of global and national problems. That Barack Obama has made clear his admiration for . . . Niebuhr's The Irony of American History is in itself reassuring. . . . It would be hard to think of another book from the 1950s that retains, nearly sixty years later, both its compulsive readability and so much of its relevance. The elegance, strength, and charm of Niebuhr's writing invite quotation at every turn. . . . It is impossible to summarize a book so strong and yet so subtle, in which every word has meaning.” -- Brian Urquhart ― New York Review of Books Published On: 2009-03-26
“The supreme American theologian of the twentieth century.”
-- Arthur Schlesinger Jr. ― New York Times“Niebuhr is important for the Left today precisely because he warned about America’s tendency—including the Left’s tendency—to do bad things in the name of idealism. His thought offers a much better understanding of where the Bush administration went wrong in Iraq.”
-- Kevin Mattson ― The Good Society“Irony provides the master key to understanding the myths and delusions that underpin American statecraft. . . . The most important book ever written on US foreign policy.”
-- Andrew J. Bacevich ― the new ForewordAbout the Author
Andrew J. Bacevich, professor of international relations and history at Boston University, is the author of The Long War.
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Product details
- ASIN : 0226583988
- Publisher : University of Chicago Press; Reprint edition (May 1, 2008)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 174 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0226583996
- ISBN-13 : 978-0226583990
- Item Weight : 8.4 ounces
- Dimensions : 8.03 x 5.44 x 0.47 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #466,128 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #326 in Historiography (Books)
- #2,732 in History of Christianity (Books)
- #3,755 in Political Science (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on AmazonTop reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
"Among us, as well as among communists, an excessive voluntarism which finally brings human history under the control of the human will is in tentative, but not in final, contradiction to a determinism which finds historical destiny favorable at some particular point to man’s assumption of mastery over that destiny."
What does it mean to find "historical destiny favorable at some particular point to man’s assumption of mastery over that destiny." I dunno.
Here's another:
"But if the mind or the will which pretends to control historical destiny is more 'historical' than is realized in one sense of the word, the lives and persons, the forces and emotions, the hopes and fears which are to be managed and controlled are more 'historical' in another sense of the word."
What are these two senses of "historical"? I couldn't find any clues in the context. And what does it mean to be "more 'historical' than is realized"? Just how "historical" was I supposed to realize that the "mind or ... will" was? I guess I need to know this so that I can judge whether the mind or will is more or less "historical" than I realized. My head is swimming in confusion...
Here are a couple mysterious phrases packed into one short sentence:
"Unique human freedom, in even the simplest peasant, transfigures nature’s immediate necessities."
What is "unique" human freedom, and how does it differ from "regular" ("non-unique") human freedom? Or is the author simply talking about "human freedom," period? Or is he talking about just plain old "freedom" (for monkeys or whales or flies or people)? And what does it mean to "transfigure nature's immediate necessities?" What exactly are "nature's immediate necessities," anyway? And in what way are they "transfigured" by "unique human freedom"? Beats me.
Niebuhr also spends way too many words in a seemingly trivial discussion of the differences between irony, tragedy, and pathos. I guess the reason he included this was because he put the word "irony" in the book’s title.
But what really disappointed me in this book is that after wading through all this verbose and convoluted prose, there seemed to be only a few ideas presented, all of which seemed obvious to me -- although evidently not as obvious to our world leaders as they ought to be:
1. Power corrupts. A powerful nation may be sincerely convinced that it is doing something for the benefit of all mankind, but it cannot escape the tendency to favor its own interests in its actions.
2. We're not as smart as we think we are. Leaders of powerful nations need to learn that human events are complex and actions have unintended consequences. For actions we take today, we may not see the full results during our lifetime. Leaders of powerful nations need to view their actions from the point of view of the different culture and history of the weaker nation that they may be trying to help. For example, developed nations like to point to their superior wealth and high standard of living as "proof" that their way is "best" and ought to be emulated. But in many cultures this wealth inequality is taken as prima facie evidence that the developed nation has engaged in nothing more than exploitation of its weaker neighbors.
3. Communism is bad news (the book was written in the early years of the Cold War), but democracy is not necessarily the answer for every country because some lack the traditions and civic infrastructure required for a well-functioning democratic society.
4. Friction between nations is unavoidable. Realistically, the best possible outcome of history is a quasistatic equilibrium in which war is held at bay because there exists effective mechanisms to mitigate the wealth inequalities between nations and adjudicate international disputes.
Irony, defined by Niebuhr, is the incongruous outcomes of virtuous actions in which contributed to incongruities unknowingly and are discovered only after reflection. That is, we seek virtue by acting virtuously but unknowingly achieve something quite different. Irony is distinguished from tragedy where the incongruous outcomes are the result of evil actions performed to achieve virtue. Irony is also distinguished from “pathos” or pathetic outcomes where the actions resulting from pathos are not connected to the planned actions humans and lack both intent and guilt. Thus, in irony, we see humans acting for a good reason, but these good deeds cause unintended results.
At the time this book was written, (1952,) America was confronting Communism. Niebuhr, an anticommunist, notes with some alacrity, that is was the dream of man to bring the whole of human history under control but that no idealist, communist or otherwise, has been able to move history towards either peace or justice. Idealist ideologies of utopia are Karl Mannheim’s “ideology of the poor.” Utopias are impossible to create and maintain. All governments start with a concept of utopia and ironically end up with something quite different as they confront the realities of history.
The grand irony is that America combats the evils generated from the same illusions that America once had. The American goals for the world were Messianic: at creation, they escaped from European’s feudal tyranny. Jefferson stated, “Under the pretense of governing, they have divided their nations into two classes, the wolves and the sheep. I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe and to the general prey of the rich upon the poor.” America had the hope that it could transform its world from a place of misery to one of happiness and contentment. The Declaration of Independence states that one of the inalienable rights was “the pursuit of happiness.” Jefferson’s picture of America was that of an agrarian society which guaranteed virtue by the hard work of owners producing the fruits of their land and insuring happiness and contentment in the enjoyment of those fruits. He believed that democracy was only safe in the agrarian economy.
Such a society regarded itself innocent because it believed self-interest to be inherently harmless. But it was blind to man’s lust for power and the injustices that flowed from the imbalances of power within its communities. America became what Jefferson most feared: a large industrial country with large metropolitans rife with the opportunities for corruption, an irony on its merit.
America carried its illusions of innocency into its foreign policy. It disavowed the need for power. However, it never was as innocent as it pretended to be particularly in the expansion Westward. Until World War I, Americans believed in a generic difference between Europe and itself. We entered into the war from considerations of national interests, interests that Americans would not acknowledge.
The communists have their own Messianic vision: Men are corrupted singularly by the ownership of property. Abolition of property ownership returns man to his original state of innocence. The proletariat initiates this return because it has no interests to defend. Revolution is necessary to accomplish this ideal. A communist society would be harmonious and unselfish thereby defining a world at peace. Capitalism is defined to hold the guilt of “imperialism” as its relentless need for property forces the need for war.
If one accepts the premises of communism, then the logic is intoxicating, so intoxicating that despite the cruelty of the actions of its leaders, they still profess belief in the logic! The irony is that the ideological taint to Marxist theory confines guilts to the economic interests of a particular class, blinding communists to the corruptions from its own human ambitions. Despite rejecting religion, it has become a religious apocalypse. It is a religion that teaches man is the master of his destiny and its “God” is “Dialectic History.” However, history does not and never has followed the logic of man.
Niebuhr states that there are two ways to deny our responsibilities to the world: 1) seeking to dominate other nations by power and 2) to withdraw from the world stage by a policy of isolationism. Before World War II, America was perhaps the most reluctant powerful to acknowledge its responsibilities to the world politic. However, World War II dispelled that notion and had the result that the United States emerged the most powerful nation on the earth. The United States possessed a weapon so powerful that we could not ignore it. It was critical to the survival of the United States, but if the United States were to use it, America would be covered with terrible guilt.
Some idealists believed that if we made strenuous rational and moral efforts toward a world government, we could escape the dilemma between guilt and innocence of war. Other idealists proclaimed that if we gave up atomic weapons, we would escape the dilemma. The realists (Niebuhr’s word, not mine,) believed that the evils already shown by communism justified the use of atomic weapons against them. Niebuhr claims, all of these positions demonstrated that there is no moral solution, but neither is there a solution which ignores moral factors.
As Niebuhr states, “Perhaps the real difficulty in both communist and liberal dreams of a rationally ordered historic process is that modern man lacks the humility to accept the fact that the whole drama of history is enacted in a frame of meaning too large for human comprehension or measurement.” Man is limited. Man’s original sin is challenging the limits which God placed on him. Man’s limitations are critical to Niebuhr’s theology and thesis. Niebuhr was the author of the “Serenity Prayer:”
“O God and Heavenly Father,
Grant to us the serenity of mind to accept that which cannot be changed;
courage to change that which can be changed, and
wisdom to know the one from the other,
through Jesus Christ, our Lord, Amen.”
Niebuhr prescribes that the success of America in the world politic depends on its ability to establish a community of many nations. It requires that America appreciates the valid practices and institutions of those nations even though they are different from our own. We must disavow our previous pretensions of Messianism and recognize that virtue enters history in unpredictable ways. There is a temptation to withdraw from world politics as we did before World War II. We have an illusion that we can live our lives with too much regard for the harassed world. We transfer democracy to the world by our example.
Few nonindustrial nations have sufficiently high standards of honesty to make a democracy viable. Furthermore, the relationship of capitalism to these nations is not guiltless: when technology from the developed nations was applied to these nations, it was to exploit them rather than improve their systems of virtues and justice. It is not possible to transmute an agrarian society into a technical one without massive dislocations of culture and society. In many cases, the wealth and standards of life in highly industrial nations are so beyond the imagination of the peoples in agrarian societies that they do not understand the requirements for democracy. Democracy is not immediately relevant to the ancient culture of the East or the primitive cultures of Africa, as is generally supposed by the Messianic proponents in America. It took for centuries of development in Europe to achieve democracy. A conclusion is that America will face tyranny in the world for decades to come, but, fortunately, the nonindustrial world lacks the technical resources to offer a mortal challenge to the society of America.
The power of the United States can be misused. Much of the world fear this. For American power in service of American idealism, while not of malice or lust of power, could result in the ironic conversion of virtues into vices. There is no clear road to happiness for the world. Idealism blinds us to our vices. A second problem with idealism is that idealists are impatient in the development of virtues in others forcing our nation into rash decisions. Where elephants dance, pygmies cower. In our blind exuberance of power, we disregard the interests of the less powerful societies. One of the great fears of Europe is that America will engage in a war Europe wants to avoid. In its frustration of achieving ideals, America may consider a “preemptive war” to enforce its Messianic inclinations. This is singularly the one policy that America must avoid. There are no guarantees of democracy over tyranny or for a peaceful resolution of conflict once engaged. Often, America’s foreign policy has shown ignorance of this.
There are those who claim our foreign policy should be based solely on national interests. According Niebuhr, this egotism is wrongheaded. The cure for pretentious idealism is not egotism but the concern for both self and others, and preserving the respect for the opinions of others derived from an awareness of one’s knowledge and power.
Most importantly, we must, from time to time, step back and reflect on what virtues we were acting under and how they contributed to unintended outcomes. The knowledge of irony is often reserved for observers rather than the participants. Ironic interpretations are difficult but critical, not hostile, detachment is required. But, it is required for maturity in foreign relations.
Niebuhr ends with “For if we should perish, the ruthlessness of the foe would only be a secondary cause of the disaster. The primary cause would be that the strength of a giant nation was directed by eyes too blind to see all the hazards and of the struggle; and the blindness would be induced not by some accident of nature or history but by hatred and vainglory.”
Despite its brevity, this book is not an easy book to read. It is necessary to read, review and think about the predicates to gain appreciation for the tight logic used by Niebuhr. Not everyone will like this book: it does not fall into the neat “Conservative” and “Liberal” boxes of American politics today. But its message is still as valid today as they were in 1952 when Niebuhr wrote this text.







