222
PARTISAN REVIEW
called scientific method in the evalua,tion of judgments of political
technology, one can only ask: What other ways are there? One
must remember, of course, that we are thinking of political tech–
nology as the discipline in which we ask about the best ways of
achieving certain social and political ends, and that the answers to
such questions take the form of statements to the effect that a certain
kind of action is most likely to achieve a certain kind of result.
3.
Human Nature and Politics.
So far, I see no reason to think
of Niebuhr as having demolished or replaced Dewey as a social or
political philosopher. But we have not yet dealt with what is thought
to be Niebuhr's chief distinction: his deeply "realistic" vision of
man's state by comparison with Dewey's supposedly idle dreams.
What can we say about this contrast after our earlier conclusions
about Dewey's relations to the children of light?
Here it seems necessary to say, as one must so frequently say
when one is bound by neither formula nor wejudice, that the dif–
ferences which Niebuhr magnifies so dramatically and misleadingly
are differences in degree of emphasis on the part of thinkers who
see that man is not perfect. Some think that the resolution of social
tension is extremely difficult and some are more optimistic; in short,
there are disputes as to how heavenly earth can be. But can this
bare, unqualified, banal dichotomy, if it is the real dichotomy be–
tween the children of light and the children of darkness, help us
divide the intellectual or political globe in an interesting way? All
we have here is the recognition that men are somewhere between
the serpent and the dove, and while Niebuhr puts us closer to the
serpent, Dewey puts us closer to the dove. But the serious question
for political action is "How close?" in either case. Niebuhr's more
recent reflections lead him to answer: "Too close to the serpent to
allow for successful central planning," and for this reason some of
our younger liberals who reject socialism in favor of Keynesianism
now think of Niebuhr as one of the deepest political thinkers in
America: for example, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
It should be remembered, however, that Niebuhr has not always
held his present political position. He defended socialism in his earlier
work, when he held the same Pauline and Augustinian doctrine of
man,
Wh~t
has happened since then
is
tqat Niebuhr's skepticism
