Niebuhr contended that the absence of a consideration of the reality of sin in the development of political theory and policy led to the development of unrealistic assumptions about the character of both human beings and the nation states that they create. As a consequence, according to Niebuhr, the "result of this persistent blindness to the obvious . . . is that democracy has had to maintain itself precariously against the guile and malice of the children of darkness, while its statesmen . . . conjured up all sorts of abstract and abortive plans for the creation of perfect national and international communities."3

Niebuhr's condemnation of "moral idealists who are not conscious of the corruption of selfinterest in their professed ideals" led him to the development of his concept of human nature which has placed his ideas in the realist school.4 He extended to the realm of political intercourse between nations the effects

Niebuhr's ideas, at times, descended from the ethnocentric to the near racist. He wrote that, although the communist system "does generate terrible injustices," while its claims of justice "are on the whole fraudulent," it "has sufficient plausibility to impress the colored continents."26 The clear implication of such a statement is that the noncolored races would not be so gullible. Niebuhr contended that "the whole world must now stand guard" against the communist movement," and that the United States is the "prime bearer" of this effort.27

As stated earlier in this paper, Williams contended that the way in which the United States formulates and applies foreign policy tends to obscure the superiority of American values.57 Considering that the myths on which Williams claims much of American foreign policy is based are widely accepted within the American population, it may be risky to attempt to separate American myths from American values. While there is little doubt that Williams correctly identified myths underlying American foreign policy, there is justification for the proposition that these myths are representative of values shared by a wide body of the American population. To support this contention, I would argue that Reinhold Niebuhr, to a great extent, shared in the general acceptance of many of these myths, and that to a lesser extent the same thing could be said of George Frost Kennan. While I find myself in general agreement with William Appleman Williams, I think that he may be a voice in the wilderness.

Niebuhr, Reinhold. "The Two Dimensions of the Struggle." Christianity and Crisis, 11, 28 May 1951, 5966.

29Ibid., 194195.exclusively, on . . . the leadership we . . .bring to our conduct as a world power."30 As noted earlier in this review and critique, Niebuhr had contended that "the world is being held together" by American power.31