Moral Man and Immoral Society, by Reinhold Neibhur, was written during the period of the Great Depression. In this book, Reinhold insists on the necessity of politics in the struggle for social justice because of the sinfulness of human nature, that is, the egotism of individuals and groups. He sees the limitations of reason to solve social injustice by moral and rational means, “since reason is always the servant of interest in a social situation” (xiv-xv). This is his critique of liberal Christian theology, which strongly believes in the rational capacity of humans to make themselves be moral, and he accepts this vulnerability as our reality. In other words, Neibhur correctly saw the immorality of systems in society (e.g., social welfare) and its futile attempts to ameliorate individuals and their needs. http://people.bu.edu/
Neibhur cautions us about embracing “herd mentalities.” According to him, individuals are morally capable of considering the interests of others and acting. That is, individuals can be unselfish. Societies, however, find it virtually impossible to handle rationally the competing interests of subgroups. Societies, he argues, effectively gather up only individuals’ selfish impulses, not their capacities for unselfish consideration toward others. According to Niebuhr, this collective egoism of individuals-in-groups is overridingly powerful. “In every human group there is less reason to guide and to check impulse, less capacity for self-transcendence, less ability to comprehend the needs of others, therefore more unrestrained egoism than the individuals, who compose the group, reveal in their personal relationships” (xi-xii).
My point is, some politicians may be sincere in their understanding about several issues. In fact, they may be right about some issues. Buy when that group gains political hegemony, it can lose focus and direction.
Therefore, “All social co-operation on a larger scale than the most intimate social group requires a measure of coercion” (3). “Every group, as every individual, has expansive desires which are rooted in the instinct of survival and soon extend beyond it. The will-to-live becomes the will-to-power” (18). “Thus society is in a perpetual state of war.”
Individuals can be moral in purpose and in actions. But, combine a bunch of individuals into a coercive group can cause the group to become immoral. For example, Adolf Hitler’s rise to power was initially a good thing for Germany. He brought jobs and prosperity to his people. However, as he gained power, the moral imperative became the despotic immoral coercion.
The answer to this apparent contradiction is, of course the Gospel Neibhur stresses the role of the Holy Spirit (what he calls the “religious imagination”). In a sense groups, political parties, remain moral because the individuals answer to a “higher power,” not to the coercion of the group or to the agenda of the group. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for example, was perhaps the most patriotic of Germans because he loved his God and his country enough to obey God and His Word above all persons. This was the only way, Bonhoeffer understood, that his nation could be moral and right before the God he served.