Good or Bad for the Jews

"Good or Bad for the Jews"

Many years ago, and for many years, I would travel to Morocco to visit uncles, cousins, and my paternal grandmother. Some lived in Tangiers;...

Monday, January 18, 2016

Martin Luther King

I was going to write about the pathetic Democratic debate, but decided, instead, to re-post a little something I wrote a couple of years ago on the legacy of Martin Luther King. I think it still holds up as we mark another MLK Day here in the US. I will try to deal with that "debate" a bit later on . . . maybe.

The Legacy of Martin Luther King (January 21, 2014) 

Yesterday was Martin Luther King Day in the US; TV and other media were full of stories about King and his times, and what it all means today. He has been compared to Gandhi and Mandela, become an icon for American "progressives," and, of course, a historical symbol of the nonviolent civil rights struggle of the 1950s and 1960s. He won the Nobel Peace Prize, almost every major American city has a thoroughfare named for him, and, as noted, we have a national holiday in his honor--making him and Columbus the only ones to have such holidays. Gunned down in 1968, at the age of thirty-nine, he left the civil rights movement to less capable and less visionary successors who undermined his legacy and his goal of a color-blind nation.

Was he a great man? He certainly showed great courage, commitment to his cause, insistence on nonviolence, strong political and leadership skills, patriotism, and became a highly eloquent spokesman for civil rights. "I Have a Dream" is one of the great speeches in the English language. King's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" more than equals any Thoreau or Gandhi writings, and is not something that today's civil rights leaders, such as they are, could match, nor could the typical graduate of almost any university in the world today. (The letter's pacing, erudition, and, above all, the surgical preciseness with which it takes down opposing arguments bring to mind General Sherman's letter to the Mayor of Atlanta.) King's life made a difference to millions of people. The answer, therefore, to this paragraph's question is yes, he was a great man.

That said, serious problems exist with some of the narrative spun about King, in particular, and the civil rights struggle, in general. Part of the problem, of course, is that King died young, enabling others, as happened with the two Kennedy brothers, to fill in the rest of the story, and use it to further certain political agendas. King died short of his fortieth birthday; had he lived longer, presumably, he would have evolved and, possibly, become a very different man than he was when he died--we will never know. What we do know is that the Democratic Party and their "progressive" media and education machines have rewritten the history of the civil rights struggle. This was driven home to me some years ago while visiting a college campus. The students assumed King was a Democrat, and the segregationists confronting the peaceful marchers, and using fire hoses, snarling police dogs, and truncheons, and wearing white hoods were Republicans. They assume a Republican killed King--today's college kids probably believe the Tea Party had him killed. That the exact opposite is true, shocks many. King came from a staunchly Republican family--his father, a prominent leader in his own right--openly endorsed Richard Nixon against JFK in the 1960 presidential election.

The Democrats had a one-party lock on the South. The party of slave owners and secessionists, had become the party of Jim Crow, school segregation, anti-miscegenation laws, poll taxes, and on and on. Many Americans, not to mention foreigners, do not realize not only that the Republican party was formed in opposition to slavery, and that Lincoln was a Republican, but that the famous Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, whose rulings dismantled the legal basis for segregation and put serious limitations on the power of police, was a former Republican Governor of California. It was, furthermore, war hero and Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who sent troops to Arkansas to enforce court-ordered desegregation at Little Rock Central High School. Congressional Republicans were the main supporters of civil rights legislation; their votes ensured passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, over the opposition of a significant bloc of Democrats--let us also not forget that Congressional Democrats for years blocked Republican efforts to pass federal anti-lynching legislation. All this, of course, is history, but an important chunk of American history that is being lost, distorted, or otherwise flushed down the memory sewer--along with the fact that anti-leftist J. Edgar Hoover proved the most formidable foe of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), an organization founded and staffed by Democrats, such as long-time Democratic Senator Robert Byrd.

Before getting back to King, let's address another issue that has been badly distorted and become something of a meme among the quasi-literate left, to wit, the idea that the parties have "switched places." This is something I have heard from some lefties who, knowing the true history of the Democratic and Republican Parties when it comes to race and civil rights, try to argue that that was then, and this is now. Since FDR or so, they argue, the Democratic and the Republican Parties "switched" places on the race issue, with Republicans taking the role of protecting white privilege and keeping minorities, especially blacks, down.

The truth is quite different. What happened was that the old party of slavers, segregationists, lynch mobs, and secessionists figured out that government programs and intervention were the means to deprive Republicans of a significant voter bloc. The aim was to keep black Americans dependent on the largesse of government and Democrat-run urban political machines. Anyone who doubts that should read the crude comment in which President Johnson revealed the real purpose underlying his massive social program expansion, i.e., to keep black Americans voting Democratic. The Democrats have succeeded admirably in this objective.

Back to King and the civil rights movement. By the time of his death, King was losing control over the movement. It was fragmenting. King's vision of a nonviolent effort was under assault by increasingly violent and radical elements. The message of non-violence and concentration on individual liberty was losing attraction. The thirty-nine-year-old King seemed old, thundering out a message from another time. A new generation of black activists, inspired by the increasingly confrontational and violent atmosphere in the country were challenging King for the spotlight. They found allies in violence in the largely white anti-Vietnam War movement. 

The civil rights struggle was becoming increasingly part of the noise of the very bad closing years of the 1960s, which saw violent race riots shake nearly every American city, and numerous incidents of domestic terrorism. In addition, what had been a largely grass-roots, private sector movement was being sabotaged by growing government involvement. Many black leaders were being syphoned off by government programs to "fight poverty." Black activists increasingly focused on getting handouts to their followers rather than, as noted above, on King's more lofty, ancient-sounding focus on liberty, and the goal of having people judged not by their color but by the "content of their character." This new generation of government-oriented and dependent leaders did not fit in with King's conservative Southern and church-based movement. They needed racial turmoil, not racial harmony. We need also remember that Attorney General Robert Kennedy had put King under FBI surveillance, including the making of compromising tapes of King having liaisons with women not his wife, providing the government excellent blackmail material against him.

All these factors had taken a toll on King; he aged dramatically in appearance, and had begun talking about issues not directly related to the civil rights struggle, e.g., the Middle East, Vietnam. Had he lived longer, I suspect we would have seen King becoming increasingly radicalized, pushed leftward as he sought to retain control of his movement--but, as noted before, we will never know.

In sum, he was a great man with a great vision. His successors, many of them frauds of the first rank, largely have not been faithful to that vision of liberty and color-blindness, and we all have suffered for it.


  1. Well said, Dip. The US was very lucky to have King, given the likely alternatives.

    1. Actually, Edgar Nixon was directing a campaign through the courts (litigator: Thurgood Marshall) that might have been as successful in killing Jim Crow with fewer side effects than the demonstrations-for-publicity route taken by, above all others, Martin King Jr.

      But that's a might-have-been. There's an at-least-equal and opposite might-not-have-been.

      King certainly belongs in this nation's pantheon of heroes. He is pretty widely eponymous for so recent a figure, but not grossly so. A little script to find, for some term "X" the number of Google hits for "X street", "X avenue", and so on, but only for thoroughfares--a quick and dirty measurement--shows this for King and recent presidents:

      3,340,000 George Bush
      638,000 Roosevelt
      597,000 Kennedy
      551,000 Jay
      445,000 Eisenhower
      244,000 Truman
      199,000 Nixon
      123,000 Reagan
      118,000 Obama
      68,600 Jimmy Carter
      53,800 Lyndon B. Johnson
      16,800 Bill Clinton
      7,500 George W. Bush
      6,020 Gerald Ford
      2,620 George H. W. Bush
      2,090 Martin Luther King

      For comparison, here are the figures for some founding fathers:

      14,000,000 Washington
      8,940,000 Madison
      8,040,000 Franklin
      6,290,000 Lincoln
      5,820,000 Jefferson
      3,060,000 Adams
      762,000 Hamilton
      754,000 Marshall

    2. Oops. Jay belongs with the founders, not the recent presidents, of course.

  2. Yes Mad there really is no telling where his life would have gone had he lived longer. It's also a good reflection on the fact that we are led down the path by men, not saints. Though imperfect, they do shine the light, but it is us who must make the steps on the journey. It reminds me of More's observation on ascending the scaffold to his death. He asked for help on the way up, but would "shift for himself" on the way down.
    The progs think that they can reconstruct reality to their liking and freeze the result in time. It is the ultimate self delusion that has caused and will cause death and misery for hundreds of millions.

  3. Adding to my above comments about progressive fantasy. You already hear some of them talking about life extension technology. They really do think they have escaped intellectual plane of mere mortals and believe they can do it physically. And they don't care how many others have to suffer and die to achieve it.
    James the Lesser

  4. The Left always goes after the "institutions" first. That way they can reimagine history, change events or erase them as needed. Give them a child for 8 years or so and he will be "remade". Well, words to that effect anyway.

  5. I remember well having conversations about what I considered the mistake of King getting involved with the anti-Vietnam movement which brought him allies that had no interest in racial matters and were probably more interested in using him.

  6. Well said, Dip. Thanks for the reminders and for correcting the dishonest story the left likes to peddle.

  7. A few years ago, I came up with this thought on MLK Day:

    "Those who inherited the leadership of the Civil Rights movement looked deep into the content of their character...and decided they'd best be judged by the color of their skin or they were in trouble."