Today is Martin Luther King Day. Along with Christopher Columbus, Jesus Christ, and George Washington (What's obscenely called "Presidents' Day" is still technically recognized by the federal government as "Washington's Birthday."), King is one of four historical figures whose name graces a federal holiday. King belongs to the American nation as few men do. Thus, it is unsurprising, if still annoying, that the martyred civil-rights activist has become all things to all people.
Conservative bloggers are aghast that leftists have appropriated King for their own political purposes.
The editors of the Unalienable Right contend that "it's striking how in tune with modern conservative principles" Martin Luther King's civil-rights writings are. With unintended irony, they continue: "Sadly, many today wish to appropriate Dr. King’s memory for their own political aims." Specifically, the Unalienable Right points to "left-wing" and "anti-Bush" events that commemorate Martin Luther King's birthday. As if Martin Luther King would not approve? In 1964, King demagogically exclaimed: "We see dangerous signs of Hitlerism in the Goldwater campaign." Gateway Pundit chronicles numerous MLK Day gatherings of the far-Left. Of a Sunday rally on the Mall in Washington, DC, the Gateway Pundit writes: "Seen among the crowd were various pro-Palestinian banners and others denigrating America, one calling it 'The greatest purveyor of violence in the world.'" Certainly the people holding such a banner concur with that sentiment, but they're not calling America the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world." They're quoting Martin Luther King. He said that.
Who, really, are abusing the memory of Martin Luther King?
To be troubled by contemporary crackpots, who rail against America as a force for violence or compare to Hitler whomever leads the Republican Party, is to be troubled by parts of Martin Luther King's legacy. The extremists making such ridiculous charges, after all, are merely repackaging for today things that King said yesterday.
Martin Luther King exhibited many admirable qualities and promoted many laudable ideas. This is particularly true if one looks at the big picture. A society that judges a person by the content of his character rather than the color of his skin is better than a society that automatically disqualifies a person because of an irrelevant issue such as skin color. The latter ethos reigned in much of America for most of its history. That it doesn't today is in no small part due to the efforts of Martin Luther King. Recognizing this does not require us to overturn the lesser, disconcerting aspects of King's legacy.
Conservatives look at Martin Luther King and imagine a reflection of themselves in the mirror. To see King as he was and not as we want him to be is no crime against King. To do otherwise is a crime against history.
An interesting perspective on King, Dan. I don't think the view that the left has co-opted King for their own benfeit is quite right, though. The fact is, the civil rights movement was, from the beginning, in league with the left, as I've written about, myself (http://www.garyrea.com/civilrightsmovement.htm). King, along with many other civil rights activists, received training in activism at the Highlander Folk School in New Market, Tennessee during the fifties. The Highlander Folk School was investigated, in 1957, by the Senate Internal Security subcomittee for its ties to communist labor organizations. So, the view that the left has only recently latched onto King for its own ends is simply not true. The whole history of the civil right movement has been a leftist movement from the beginning.
I sure do miss the annual MLK column by Sam Francis. Sure his opinion was wickedly unpopular, but it was nice to see one hold out as everyone else in society can't find the least bit critical to say about the man.
On a related note, I was thinking of how anyone that attended an Accuracy in Academia Conference with Sam Francis as a speaker will never live it down in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Thanks Dan.
An important and provocative post, Dan. The article on Lew Rockwell could be called "MLK Marched For Freedom With Clay Feet".
The guy is Martyr #1 in the "Trinity" of liberal 60s martyrs (+ JFK & RFK) and likewise in the Duet of Black radical martyrs (+ Malcom Little (a/k/a X)). "If only A, B & C [or D&E] hadn't been killed, then ..." goes the foggy liberal rumination. So I understand, from the arena-of-ideas perspective, why conservatives, esp. neo-cons, will insist on MLK's conservative strains (or even credentials?). Still, I hope this envelope gets pushed further in this forum and others.
I believe in celebrating people for their distinguishing features. King stood out as the leader in the movement to get the Constitution on track. It was the greatest cause of the century. It secured civil rights for many Americans and decency for the rest. This was carried out largely through an appeal to the democratic nature of our people.
The people who seek to use him for their anti-war posture or to tear him down for his human failings miss the mark. We are all human. A great man's human failings are no reason not to admire him. Jefferson was a slaveholder, and who knows what else. In this he is not unique, but he did write the declaration. He was a great man.
Big ups to my main man MLK.Him is the bestest brother to ever walk the streets and what me love best of him is you don't have to be lutheran to understands him.RECONIZE!!
This isn't the first of Flynn's interesting takes on MLK.
http://www.academia.org/store/plagiarism_culture_war.html
“The news has been out since the late 1980s that Martin Luther King Jr., the American Civil Rights icon, was a serial plagiarist. Not only did he plagiarize at least half of his doctoral thesis; many of his speeches, including the most famous, were plagiarized too. Nor was this a recent development in his career - he had been plagiarizing material since he was a teenager.”
So says Gavan Tredoux, in an article entitled “I have a dream – but if you strip search me, you’ll find three more.” The brief piece reviews Theodore Pappas’ controversial “Plagiarism and the Culture War: The Writings of Martin Luther King Jr. and Other Prominent Americans.”
I thought it'd be interesting to post part of an AIM conversation I had with a friend. Her response to a mention of MLK's plagiarism follows.
: how do you know
: and why do you even care
: ok
: you are the only person i know who's ever said something like that
: MLK was a plagiarist
: i mean, why would you say that
: because nobody else says that
: and why would you go out of your way to find out something like that
: seriously, who cares? i mean, does it really matter
It is worth noting that this NYU sophomore is very liberal. It is also worth noting the irony in condemning me for saying controversial things about MLK, since MLK has his own holiday and her respect precisely because he said controversial things.
Philosophical rumination over accurate history aside, MLK’s plagiarism is just plain interesting. If you think about it, MLK’s plagiarism belongs in a book exploring how ideology closes doors in the mind. Embracing a set of beliefs and ideas that make ordinary people reject truth as a smoker scoffs at the health risks of his habit is the subject of my new book, “Scholarly Dumbos: How Creed Make Geniuses Unsmart.”
To adapt a line from my book "Why The Left Hates America," doesn't teaching the good, the bad and the ugly mean teaching the bad and the ugly, too? To do otherwise is a crime against history, as I always say.
Dan,
The problem was, that back then (i.e., 1964), America could be accused, with some credibility, of being a force for violence (in Southeast Asia), and there were elements of Hitlerism (at least if you mean real intent to racially discriminate) in the Goldwater campaign.
Today, these people are just making a mountain out of a molehill.
So I hear you're making a trip to Old Europe, Dan?
I still get a lot of emails about my piece linked here, and would get even more.
While I do not think that Jim Crow and segregation was an ideal state, that does not mean that the fundamental premises and means that underlay the Civil Rights Movementwere good. At its very core, the point of MLLK, and his movement undermined states' rights, self government, and freedom of association. To me this is the main reason I do not admire King. His philandering, communist ties, socialism, slandering of Barry Goldwater, plagarism are all incidental to me. I only pointed those things out in my article to underscoe that by even compassionate neocon standards, you shouldn't support King.
I'd also add that his support of affirmative action and reparations are a logical conclusion of a movement that believed that by removing legal disparities between blacks and whites that all social and economic disparities would be remedied as well.
As I pointed out in the article, before Reagan signed the King holiday into law, he responded to someone who worried about Kings communist and philandering tendencies "I have the reservations you have, but here the perception of too many people is based on an image, not reality."
From the start, Reagan knew that the holiday was about a false image, and it was pretty stupid for him, or anyone to think that the holiday wouldn't be used to support King's real leftist agenda.
As I see it the Goldwater view vs The MLK view comes down to a single dichotomy:
What is more important?
The right of self determination for the states (in this case, the right to choose to segregation)
Or the inalienable rights of American blacks, rights which were transgressed upon by Jim Crow and segregation?
It is my general belief that inalienable rights of the individuals outstrip communal rights of self-determination.
As usual, I fall on the side of the individual as opposed to the community in the form of the government.
Also, what definitely does NOT matter, is that civil rights were advocated mostly by the far left. If this is the case, than it is the shame of the right wing,not of the civil rights movement.
"At its very core, the point of MLLK, and his movement undermined states' rights, self government, and freedom of association. "
The states' rights associated with segregation and Jim Crow were rightly judged to be in contradiction with those rights outlined in the 14th amendment. States' rights, self-government, and freedom of association are alive and well within the constrictions of the Constitution. I agree with Ben-T. What this has to do with being a neo-con is beyond me as this view was dominant throughout the land before I ever heard the term "neo-con." I am for the Constitution.
Perhaps States' Rights is not the proper phrase and it should be rephrased as "limitations on the federal government." I agree that states don't have rights, but that doesn't mean the Federal Government has the right to tell them what they can and can't do if its not authorized in the constitution.
Anyone with even the most basic understanding of the constitution would know that the 14th Amendment did not justify the civil rights movement, as the same congress that passed it also segregated schools and other public facilities in the District of Columbia.
The reason the Left supported the civil rights movement and not the conservative movement is because at its core, the movement was the worst kind of leftism: consolidation of power in the name of egalitarianism. If you think standing up for these basic principles is any sort of failure or shame, then I would question whether you are conservative.
"but that doesn't mean the Federal Government has the right to tell them what they can and can't do if its not authorized in the constitution."
What the constitution demands is "equal protection under the laws." Jim Crow is quite arguably not equal protection under the law. This is sticking to the plain letter of the Constitution and requiring no sophistry. That those opting for segregation in DC schools were hypocrites or idiots is beside the point. Certainly 90 years of experience with the failure of Jim Crow to provide equal protection is a reasonable basis for a clear understanding that separate is not equal. Perhaps in 1866 the congress felt separate could be equal. They were wrong, and by the 1950s most of congress knew it.
As a conservative I stand up for less government interference in my life. If I wish to marry a woman of another race, it is our business, not Alabama's or California's. I stand up for equal application of the law, which has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of almost, apparently, all not to have been occurring under Jim Crow. I do agree that the left embraced the civil rights movement as it was part and parcel of an egalitarian, socialist view that I do not share. Treating, or mistreating, people according to skin color should not be in the purview of any republican government.
A.) Someone had referenced Goldwater as being opposed to the civil rights movement. That is not the case. This is what Wiki has to say about Goldwater:
"Goldwater had a controversial record on civil rights. Locally he was a supporter of the Arizona NAACP and was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard. As a Senator, he was a supporter of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1960. However, he opposed the much more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that it was an inappropriate extension of the federal commerce power to private citizens in order to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers. Although conservative Southern Democrats were the main opponents to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and previous civil rights legislation, his opposition to the Act strongly boosted Goldwater's standing among white southerners."
That is hardly what he was made out to be by some here.
Moving on to civil rights:
The United States government, nor the government of any state, or nation, has not the power to give or to remove a human being's natural rights. All humans have had their natural rights since the beginning of time and will have them until the end of time. They recieved them from God, an authority far higher than any congress.
Whether the U.S government recognizes these rights or not, all peoples have them.
However, since our country is FOUNDED on the ideas of natural law and natural rights, I would heartily recommend that we DO recognize them, as we have chosen to do.
And Marcus, if you see something wrong with standing up for natural law, for individual rights, and for human liberty, I question YOUR credentials as a conservative.
1) I think the 14th Amendment was terrible, but besides that I think any who calls themselves a constituionalist would care about the original intentions of the drafters of the constitution and the Amendments. It is very clear that the drafters of the 14th Amendment did not intend for it to be used for desegregation, and any attempt to construe as such is Judicial Activism pure and simple.
As for your statement "ertainly 90 years of experience with the failure of Jim Crow to provide equal protection is a reasonable basis for a clear understanding that separate is not equal." You could use that logic to say "certainly 220 years of failure of _______ Means that _____ part of the constitution doesn't apply." Furthermore, what do you call this nation's 50 year failure with egalitarianism?
3) What you are standing for is not natural law law, but universal human rights. Every country and state in the world violates someones natural rights by someone's standards and your belief would justify any country going to war with anyone to enforce them.
Natural Rights are a Jacobin-Enlightenment construction and are the anthithesis of conservatism, properly understood.
4)Goldwater opposed Brown vs. Board of Education and the Civil Rights act of 1964, which pretty much were the two most important accomplishments of the civil rights movement. He may have emphasized with the concerns of the movement, but he opposed what they accomplished. As for whatever integration he did in Arizona, that is pretty irrelevant as the Civil Rights Movement was an attack on the South by the federal government, not some western state choosing its own policies. I am guessing that Arizona was at most 5% black at that time, I woudln't be surprised if it was less than 1%. Its much easier to have egalitarianism under those circumstances than in Mississippi or Alabama, which were over 35% black.
I don't know with any precision what you mean by 50 years of egalitarianism. If you mean desegregation, then I don't see failure. Under desegregation equality under the law has occurred, and that is a constitutional imperative. Perfection is not the goal. Observation of amendment 14 is.
Your position that the 14th Amendment was terrible is curious. Is your objection that it calls upon a certain uniformity among states that stifles something important? Do you believe that the law should be applied differently to different groups of people?Without the 14th Amendment a group to which you belong might someday find itself in a minority status that is vulnerable to exploitation as were blacks before the civil rights movement.
"You could use that logic to say "certainly 220 years of failure of _______ Means that _____ part of the constitution doesn't apply." A more specific hypothetical of your thought would make this clearer. If you can point to some definite aim of the Constitution that has not been met due to some practice of longstanding that should be preserved even though, you have got an argument. If a stated goal of an amendment (e.g. freedom of speech, or equal protection under the law) is not being reached as a result of some practice over long years of application, then yes, that practice should be ended. But then, I could be wrong.
Marcus, the founding fathers were well aware of the supreme moral injustices they were visiting upon the black man in America.
"Oh how I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just." -Thomas Jefferson, on that very subject.
As for your comment about egalitarianism, it's total irrelevancy aside, you are setting up a false dichotomy, implying that if we support desegregation, we are just a bunch of raving socialists.
Whom among us could undergo such a microscopic exam of our character?
When people tear down King for alleged plagiarism and other human foibles, how dare they not do the same for our draft-doger president?
As another iconoclast of some renown once said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
But then I'm sure someone will point out that this person hung out with prostitutes, committed terrorism against financial institutions, and spent most of his time with twelve other men -- surely a liberal pinko homo, not worthy of praise nor regard.
