Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Cal  Thomas :: Townhall.com Columnist
King's Imprint
by Cal Thomas
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Certain events imprint the mind with images time cannot erase. People of one generation recall where they were when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. People of another remember where they were when John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

Then there was the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 40 years ago, April 4. I was a young man having dinner with an old man at an upscale private club in Atlanta. When the news came in, it was whispered from table to table. There were shocked murmurs, heads shook.

That night I caught the last flight from Atlanta to Washington. As the plane began to descend toward National Airport, I saw the city of my birth in flames. Our nation's capital looked like Berlin after the bombings of World War II.

National Guardsmen were called out, one of them my brother-in-law. People believed a race war had begun. It was a scary, sobering time. An apostate of hate had killed the apostle of nonviolence.

Much has been written and spoken of that horrible day 40 years ago. Much more will be written and spoken in decades to come. King is as much a part of American history as is Abraham Lincoln. Why do evil men so often take from us those who seek to do good?

For years what became known as the "riot corridor," three Washington-area thoroughfares ravaged by looting and arson in 1968, languished in decay. The Nixon administration demonstrated little interest in seeing the corridor rebuilt. Washington was (and is) a one-party town and Nixon's "Southern strategy" sought white votes, not black ones. No business wanted to set up shop in areas so recently destroyed by vandals.

Yes, some of the rioters were criminals looking for an excuse to rob and loot. Others allowed their despair to overcome good judgment, burning their neighborhoods and thrusting themselves further down the ladder of success.

Dr. King would not recognize modern Washington. It still has its deep pockets of poverty, but today's capital city is vibrant and optimistic. A brand-new baseball stadium just opened and the hope is that it will contribute economic revitalization to a part of the city where prosperity has been a stranger.

People who don't read history or weren't alive during the King era may have forgotten, or never knew, of the character assassinations made against him. Some white preachers claimed he kept company with communists. Others appealed to the most virulent forms of racism, suggesting that if black men gained their "endowed unalienable rights" they might marry white women, thus "polluting" the gene pool. To younger people, this may sound like fiction. Those who lived through it, especially black people (who were called "negroes" on a good day) know it as fact.

It was in this environment that Dr. King lived, preached and worked. It is easy to bask in his glow four decades after his death. It took incredible bravery at the time to walk with him in support of his cause. And it wasn't only his cause. It was an American cause. He challenged this country to live up to its ideals and what he knew was its better nature, if it could escape from behind the barricade of prejudice and ignorance.

He said, "I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word."

Two months after King's murder, Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. Kennedy echoed King when he said, "Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope."

King sent out more than a ripple of hope, he sent out a flood. Without him there might not have been a civil rights movement, at least not one as effective in breaking the chains of injustice. That's a legacy that should make all Americans proud. That's why King deserves more than a national holiday. In what he said about race and brotherhood, he deserves to be followed.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America".
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Cal Thomas' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Lincoln and King
The assassination of Lincoln left the South open to those who did not share his "malice toward none" sentiments and policy. Though the South saw him as their enemy, his loss was their loss the most.

The assassination of King is much the same. Though perhaps he was a threatening figure to his opponents at the time, I become more convinced as I get older that his loss was a huge loss to them. One senses that he believed his rhetoric that "I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word," and that it was achievable in his lifetime. There is the sense with him that he would be able to say one day that so much progress has been made without having to always qualify it with "but so much is left to be done," or always bring past grievances to mind.

Lincoln speculated that the War was punishment stored up for every drop drawn by the lash. Perhaps Reconstruction was the interest on that debt. Likewise, maybe the struggles of the 60's were punishment for the years of Jim Crow and forced segregation, and enduring King's successors the interest.

"The way it is...."
...which, by the way, is the title of a great song by Bruce Hornsby. Check it out.

Back on Cal's article, Boutte's post is quite interesting, even if politically correct(just kidding).

I too don't wallow in the p.c. mud.

I am aware King had lots of faults.

King was AT LEAST a socialist. Many of his chief advisors were outright communists. In fact, both JFK and Robert Kennedy urged King to stop his association with communists.

And King was an unapologetic plagiarizer, as well as being a compulsive womanizer.

So much for that moral halo some like to attribute to him.

Those today who support this administration ought to recognize if King were alive today he would be strongly opposed to the Iraq war...just as he strongly condemned U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Not that that is the wrong position to take, mind you.

No doubt King was very tarnished.

That being said, he did embody a historically compelling movement whose time had come. And he largely sought to change the social and political fabric of the United States thru peaceful, non violent means.

I view him as a deeply flawed figure who nonetheless performed a historic service to his people, as well as to our nation, in the area of civil rights.

At that time, he was a beacon of hope within the black community.

And while times have changed, he still is held in deep reverence by older black Americans. And I respect their views. He was a source of great inspiration to blacks back then.

Much of the naive idealism of the 60s, be it civil rights, womens rights, has now been hijacked by opportunists and hucksters. It probably was inevitable.

That's just the way it is.

Revisionism from Cal?
Indeed, King was a very good man, and seemed to stand for nonviolent change. BUT, he was certainly socialist in disposition and there is in fact evidence of plagiarism. Since I am not a huge fan of national holidays based on mostly racial concerns, or frankly any having to do with a charismatic leader, I will respectfully disagree that MLK Day makes any sense.

Little excuse for rioting by ANYBODY, give me a break. Actually, I might argue that those poor folks in California who want to home school have more cause to riot than those in Washington in the late 60s. Or just as much. Or, perhaps they just felt "hopeless?" What a crock . . . Same with Rodney King, no doubt, and LA. There was a riot over a hero.

These old school Republicans feel so guilty about race. Well, I've had several black best friends, and don't care about race. And CERTAINLY don't feel guilt for what I did not do.

MLK=BHO
Has CAL drunk deeply of the Big MLK LIE, appears he's another shill for the Marxist/Bigot BHO.
J. Edgar Hoover personally saw to it that documented information on King's Communist connections was provided to the President and to Congress. And conclusive information from FBI files was also provided to major newspapers and news wire services. But were the American people informed of King's real nature? No, for even in the 1960s, the fix was in—the controlled media and the bought politicians were bound and determined to push their racial mixing program on America. King was their man and nothing was going to get in their way. With a few minor exceptions, these facts have been kept from the American people. The pro-King propaganda machine grinds on, and it is even reported that a serious proposal has been made to add some of King's writings as a new book in the Bible.

Cal, lay off the hair dye!
I think all the coloring Cal has darkened his gray hair with has effected his brain in his old age. MLK certainly did some good but he sure wasn't any saint as the media and public schools attempt to brainwash us that he was. He wasn't... and for that matter, neither was Lincoln.

Old less than honorable Abe ordered his generals, Sherman & Sheridan, to have the Union Army burn, pillage, plunder and murder thousands of white civilians during The War Against the South... and later to do the same to our native Indian population.

What Dr. King .....
did will be undone by Barack Hussein Obama. BO has inserted a knife into the corporate body of the United States and is in the process of twisting that knife. If he becomes president his passion for racism and hate will manifest itself in ways that frighten me.

We need to emphasize what MLK tried to do and educate people about what he wanted was to be treated with respect without regard to his color. BHO wants to be treated WITH regard to his color. What a contrast.

Wrong side of history
The level of vitriol is surprising even for this forum.

Clearly, you guys are on the wrong side of history. What's funny is that you don't even know it!!

Solution
When something hurts most people don't want to face it. IN my mom's last moments I had to tell my sisters to come close to her and watch her go. THey were facing the walls on their cell-phones talking about mom dying. It's our nature to avoid what we don't like. Most Americans(all colors) do not like to face racism. There are a small few that purposefully engage in racism. Their shinanigans seems to get the largest share of the media's attention. Then we all get blamed and are made to feely guilty. Most of us are hoping it will just go away. An insightful and gifted speaker Beth Moore teaches if we are not a part of the solution we are a part of the problem. The media needs to stop giving racists attention. The majority of us need to go out of our way to make close friendships with all colors. Then after all that knowing human nature we will find something else to be weird about.

It died with King
"King sent out more than a ripple of hope, he sent out a flood. Without him there might not have been a civil rights movement, at least not one as effective in breaking the chains of injustice. "

IMO the civil rights movement died with King. However ,the above quote is interesting. Had he not come along the Dems would still be oppressing and hanging the negroes rather than pretending to care about them while they destroy there communities through social programs, abortion and a general condescension that says they can't make it without thekind caring democratic party.

MLK
MLK may have had some character flaws... However, he did lead this nation to the full recognization of our constitution ("equality" of opportunity for all) and in that he deserves praise. It indeed is so sad to see what is now occuring in much of the black community in that their own hatred, as preached to them by Wright, Obama and many, many others has led them to such levels of violence, anger, and destruction. It is equally sad that NO ONE in the black community or any other community is clammoring, ringing a bell, protesting or leading a cause to stop this self-inflicted genocidic nightmare. God help us all!!!!!!!

King critics fall into two categories
Those who criticize and malign Dr. King fall into one of the following two categories:

1. They are old enough to remember Dr. King and thay are still holding onto their racist-bigoted views - views that were the target of Dr. King's noble fight.

2. They are too young to remember this great man and aren't willing to take the time to read his words and listen to his speeches.

Dr. King was a great American, a noble warrior, and a role model worthy of emulating.

Way too much PC kool-aid
Cal must have drunk a few gallons of liberal PC kool-aid before he wrote this column. He continues the appalling practice of some conservatives of sucking up to black Americans by praising MLK and the civil rights revolution King led.

A few TH readers get this right; King's agenda was dead set against that of American conservatives. This agenda required an enormous expansion of the power of the national government to promote goals long identified with the Left. The power of states and their citizens to determine the rights that blacks should or should not have was taken away. Defenders of the Old South understand this, and recognize it for what it is--a usurpation of the powers traditionally given the states by the US Constitution.

The civil rights revolution is one of the great victories of the Left in American history. It took the power of the modern liberal state to outlaw racial discrimination based on law. It took the cultural apparatus of the liberal media and educational elite, along with the self-interest of business, to put pressure on American society to reduce racial discrimination based on custom. In other words, over time my side made it politically incorrect to give public expression to racist slurs against blacks.

I'm pleased with this triumph of liberalism, but no conservative should be. Cal needs to be deprogrammed; our black helicopter force is really good, isn't it?

Gestell; racist/revisionist/liberal...
... in other words, a typical 21st Century liberal Democrat.

Gestoopid writes: "... King's agenda was dead set against that of American conservatives."

King's agenda was, "One day, my children will be judged on the content of their character, not on the color of their skin." King's agenda was individual liberty, allowing individual accomplishments, providing substantial individual rewards - we call it conservatism.

Gestoopid writes again: "The civil rights revolution ...took the power of the modern liberal state to outlaw racial discrimination based on law."

The civil rights revolution was the result of one man using the power of his God-given dynamism and righteous zeal to motivate a Christian nation to rise and act according to Christian principles.

Dr. King was that man and his agenda was righteousness, not liberalism.

Gestell
I don't think there is any doubt that the programs MLK supported would require an expansion of an interventionist(federal)government, and to that extent were antithetical to small government conservatism.

It may be the original civil rights movement was one of the left's great successes, but big government programs such as LBJ's "Great Society", "War on Poverty", and programs that financially penalized black families for adult males remaining in the household, were examples of colossal leftist disasters.

And I agree with you that Cal has swigged this p.c. slop. It is most unbecoming. Maybe Cal is undergoing a midlife crisis. His recent columns seem to question his previous positions.

MLK was at least socialist, and his sympathies may have been with the communists. He surrounded himself with communists. Stanley Levison, a close advisor to MLK, was a top official within the Communist Party, USA.

And there are others.

Our p.c. educational system, abetted by an equally p.c.-obsessed media, is loath to scrutinize MLK with anything other than glowing adulation.

Yes, he embodied hope for black America, and the civil rights movement back then rectified alot of social wrongs.

But he was far from a saint, and he had alot of faults.

Amen Mr. Thomas
Excellent piece.

I've found the op-eds and articles on this anniversary of Dr. King's death to be educational (I wasn't alive during these events) and inspiring.

Thank You,

tubbs

Re: Gestell
"The civil rights revolution is one of the great victories of the Left in American history."

No Gestell, the Civil Rights movement was a movement to make this country live up to the high ideals set forth in the US Constitution. The second class citizenship that Southern states subjected African Americans to was unconstitutional and immoral. I am a Conservative and I don't feel that the federal government should overreach. But calling the whole civil rights movement an issue of states rights vs federal rights is wrong. States do not have the right to suppress American citizens that have done no wrong and broken no laws.

RE:MLK
Great comments catscratchfever!

Right-wingers, listen up
Several conservative TH readers have criticized my post and perpetuated the fantasy that MLK and the civil rights revolution can be accepted by conservatives.

I always say that today's conservatives usually don't know jack about many historical matters, and this is no exception. Today's conservatives also have lousy quality control when it comes to the content of their doctrines.

If you'd like to learn why King and his movement have no connection with conservatism, please read the following:

"Myths of Martin Luther King"
by Marcus Epstein

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html

As for my critic, baked Alaska, how in the h*** can he/she write such tripe as the following:
"The civil rights revolution was the result of one man using the power of his God-given dynamism and righteous zeal to motivate a Christian nation to rise and act according to Christian principles."

Last time I looked, the Supreme Court took control of public education, Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock, and Congress put the federal government into the business of expanding the rights of minorities. Surely this took something besides hymnn-singing and righteous zeal. It took massive governmental power, and if any conservative can't see that, then my question is: what CAN they see?

King was a minister first and foremost
Dr King was a minister first and foremost and, I firmly believe in todays climate, would be labeled a "right wing religious nut." This quote from A Letter From a Birmingham Jail pretty much sums up the differences in Dr King and the dogma of Obama and his church..."If I have said anything in this letter that overstates the truth and indicates an unreasonable impatience, I beg you to forgive me. If I have said anything that understates the truth and indicates my having a patience that allows me to settle for anything less than brotherhood, I beg God to forgive me."
Does anyone ever expect to hear anything like that from Obama's mentor Pastor Wright? Never. Unlike Obama, Wright, Jackson, and others like them, Dr King sought true and everlasting freedom from segregation and racism for all races.
All we hear these days concerning racism is the anger of blacks over their oppression. No one is willing to hear the angst of whites over continuously being labeled racists and hate-mongers while shelling out trillions of dollars towards further enslaving government programs. Self responsibilty is also lacking and just as frustrating.
Perpetuating the anger is not making progress but merely jogging in place and getting nowhere. It's time to move on and make the world a better place for all.


RE;
Gestell writes: Thursday, April, 03, 2008 4:01 PM

If you'd like to learn why King and his movement have no connection with conservatism, please read the following:

"Myths of Martin Luther King"
by Marcus Epstein

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html

As for my critic, baked Alaska, how in the h*** can he/she write such tripe as the following:
"The civil rights revolution was the result of one man using the power of his God-given dynamism and righteous zeal to motivate a Christian nation to rise and act according to Christian principles."

Last time I looked, the Supreme Court took control of public education, Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock, and Congress put the federal government into the business of expanding the rights of minorities. Surely this took something besides hymnn-singing and righteous zeal. It took massive governmental power, and if any conservative can't see that, then my question is: what CAN they see?


Let em clarify a few things:

I do not agree with the massive federal programs that were put in place in the 1960s and 1970s, such as Affirmative Action, busing and the Waor on Poverty.. As an American woman of African ancestry, I feel that such policies have been very harmful for my community and are the chief problem in the degradation of family in the post Civil Righst Era.

WITH THAT SAID, I do not see how anyone can defend the blatantly UNAMERICAN and UNCONSTITUTIONAL actions and laws that one group of Americans were subject to, FOR NO OTHER REASON than the color of their skin. What is "conservative" about denying the right to vote to fellow Americans(Americans that are moral, upright law-abiding citizens)? What is "conservative" about de jure and de facto discrimination that divides Americans into different classes of citizenship based on their complexion and ancestry alone?

"Minority Rights"?
Gestell I don't view myself as a minority, I view myself as an American.It is not the job of the federal government to secure the rights of any minority group. The federal government is to uphold the Constitution for Americans. If a state is violating constitutional law and denying constitutional protections to Americans, what is wrong with American citizens taking an issue with that?

reply to Just American part 1
I'll respond, but it will take two posts to do it.

First, you must understand that the notion that racially discriminatory laws were, or are, "unconstitutional" assumes a particular way of reading the Constitution that stems from a specific point of view. Such claim is not self-evident, as we can see from the fact that generations of defenders of racial segregation asserted precisely the opposite.

I don't know if you are aware that it was possible to maintain that racial segregation was a valid exercise of the constitutional powers reserved to the states. This was in fact the main 'Southern' and 'conservative' argument. Please note that a conservative is, among other things, someone who defends or supports some specific tradition in a society. A supporter of a tradition of reacial segregation is, with regard to that issue, nothing else but a "conservative," as were the defenders of this doctrine, called "states' rights."

While today's conservatives may not like to see that racial segregation as allowed by states' rights (and reflecting the views of the white majority) is "conservative," it is, nonetheless.

So there is an easy answer to your questions, which I repeat here: "What is "conservative" about denying the right to vote to fellow Americans(Americans that are moral, upright law-abiding citizens)? What is "conservative" about de jure and de facto discrimination that divides Americans into different classes of citizenship based on their complexion and ancestry alone?"

The simple answer is: these things are "conservative" because they stem from a tradition believed in and supported politically by white Southern populations and state governments.

reply to Just American part 2
ou owe it to yourself sometime to read the writings of prominent conservatives in the 1950s/60s. Without significant exception, Bill Buckley, the "National Review" writers, and most "Human Events" writers were dead-set against the civil rights movement.

Reply to Just American part 2

In his popular 1959 book “Up From Liberalism,” Bill Buckley supports Southern whites who will not allow blacks to vote, asserting that the white South both perceives correctly and is justified in acting upon its perception that there are “qualitative differences between the level of its culture and the Negroes’” (p.128). Further, (p. 129 fn.) Buckley writes that the Southerner will see that “intellectual and moral standards will be diluted” by racial integration of schools. In fact, Buckley looked forward (p.130) to the conflict over black voting rights as perhaps the beginning the “first radical reversal of the long drive to universalize the suffrage” that he saw as one of the fallacies of liberalism.

The racist premises of conservatives on this issue become apparent in the following from conservative intellectual icon Richard Weaver from his article “Why the south Must Prevail” in “National Review,” August 24, 1957), p. 149:

“The central question that emerges—and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal—is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.”

I don’t know how much plainer these conservative notables could have been, do you?

reply to Just American part 2
You owe it to yourself sometime to read the writings of prominent conservatives in the 1950s/60s. Without significant exception, Bill Buckley, the "National Review" writers, and most "Human Events" writers were dead-set against the civil rights movement.


In his popular 1959 book “Up From Liberalism,” Bill Buckley supports Southern whites who will not allow blacks to vote, asserting that the white South both perceives correctly and is justified in acting upon its perception that there are “qualitative differences between the level of its culture and the Negroes’” (p.128). Further, (p. 129 fn.) Buckley writes that the Southerner will see that “intellectual and moral standards will be diluted” by racial integration of schools. In fact, Buckley looked forward (p.130) to the conflict over black voting rights as perhaps the beginning the “first radical reversal of the long drive to universalize the suffrage” that he saw as one of the fallacies of liberalism.

The racist premises of conservatives on this issue become apparent in the following from conservative intellectual icon Richard Weaver from his article “Why the south Must Prevail” in “National Review,” August 24, 1957), p. 149:

“The central question that emerges—and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal—is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.”

I don’t know how much plainer these conservative notables could have been, do you?

WOW
Thanka for responding Gestell. By your post it would seem that the lying (or so I thought) Liberals might have been right: there is no place for me, an American woman of African descent, in the Conservative movement. If I am to accept your interpretation, than I must also accept, support, and defend the very disenfranchisement and segregation that my own Grandma endured and fled Mississippi to get away from. I must also accept and support the flawed notion that I am less than a White American due to my complexion and ancestry. So much for all men being created equal*rolls eyes*.

MLK warned us
In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, King wrote the following:

"I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community.

"One is a force of complacency made up of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, have been so completely drained of self-respect and a sense of 'somebodiness' that they have adjusted to segregation, and, of a few Negroes in the middle class who, because of a degree of academic and economic security, and because at points they profit by segregation, have unconsciously become insensitive to the problems of the masses.

"The other force is one of bitterness, and hatred comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up over the nation, the largest and best-known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. This movement...is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incurable 'devil.'

"I have tried to stand between these two forces saying that we need not follow the 'do-nothingism' of the complacent or the hatred and despair of the black nationalist....I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as 'rabble rousers' and 'outside agitators' those of us who are working through the channels of nonviolent direct action and refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes, out of frustration and despair, will seek solace and security in black-nationalist ideologies, a development that will lead inevitably to a frightening racial nightmare."

King wrote that 45 years ago this month. America, white and black, did not heed his warning. And here we are, having proven him "Wright." CT is right...white critics of King lost the most when he was murdered.

repl to Just American
No, you certainly don't have to do any of the things you mention--and I don't quite understand why you think they have anything to do with my point. To put my point very clearly: Conservatism rests very uncomfortably with the idea of using the power of government to end racist discrimination and to discourage racist values and attitudes. The reason for this is that conservatives are, or are supposed to be, respecters of and defenders of tradition, and tradition, to exist at all, must exist in some specific form. That form is what conservatism defends.

Today, of course, conservatives such as Cal Thomas and many others know that it is politically necessary for them to sound P.C. about MLK and civil rights. And I have no doubt that many of these conservatives are sincere in their expressions of support for American blacks.

However, at the level of coherent conservative ideological doctrine, the conservative notables I cited are far, far closer to what conservatism requires than are people like Cal Thomas. In my home library I can find far more alarming things than the passages I cited.

So, what I say: come to recognize that today's conservatives are on the right side of the civil rights issue only because they are unaware of or confused about what their ideology genuinely requires. As I like to put it, today's conservatives desperately need doctrinal quality control.

MLK
Ya Know, MLK was without doubt an inspirational guy and should have lived a long life. That said, it still kinda irks me that Washington and Lincoln got lumped together for their respective birthday celebrations to make room for MLK. For that matter, why do we have black history month? Affirmative action? they are all PC crap and degrading to all

Gestell: Form, or Process?
"Conservatism rests very uncomfortably with the idea of using the power of government to end racist discrimination and to discourage racist values and attitudes."

Historically, this is true. But:

"The reason for this is that conservatives are, or are supposed to be, respecters of and defenders of tradition, and tradition, to exist at all, must exist in some specific form. That form is what conservatism defends."

While this is true in some contexts, I do not believe it is accurate to say that the issue, when it comes to the Civil Rights movement, was about form or preserving traditions. The issue was, at least partially, the PROCESS by which the goals of the Civil Rights movement (equality under the law, voting rights, desegregation, etc.) were achieved.

The conservative argument was that doing the right thing the wrong way was still wrong, and so the federal government getting involved in state and local issues (even if the way state and local governments were handling those issues was morally questionable and unsatisfying) was considered an overreach. Whether that philosophy bears up when some states and localities were clearly using Jim Crow to defy the 14th and 15th Amendments is a worthwhile question to ask.

With that background in mind, and an understanding the one of the "traditions" conservatives want to defend it HOW things get done, the argument can be made that SOME (certainly not ALL) goals of the civil rights movement were compatible with conservatism, provided the right process was followed to achieve them.


RE:reply to Just American
Hello again Gestell,

From what I am reading of your posts, you seem to be saying that Conservatism in the USA comes down to preserving "tradition". In regards to the Civil Rights movement and opposition to it, this supposedly meant opposing the movement as a matter of preserving the racist and inhumane traditions of the South.

Now I will be the first to admit that I am still learning much about my nation and its politics. However this idea seems flawed to me and jives with what I have learned about Conservatism. I have understood the Conservative movement to be based on the following:

A strict interpretation of the Constitution
Limited powers for the federal government
Respect for states rights
Little government interference in the economy

Now, the argument that some Conservatives opposed the CRM due to the fact that it infringed on states rights(an argument articulated very well by Onesimus above) is a sound argument and would make sense. To be in line with the principles of Conservatism, one would have to oppose such an overwhelming display of power by the federal government. But to paint Conservative opposition to the Civil Rights movement as based on racst tradition alone seems to be an oversimplification of the manner.

reply to Onesimus and Just American
Your argument is that conservatives respected procedure and thus protected states' rights. My argument is that the conservative position was understood by those who articulated it to support the "right" of Southern states to discriminate. I say that this conservative position amounts to giving a green light to a system of oppression simply because a majority of Southern whites wanted to maintain it. I find it hard to dignify this position with some nice-sounding label. Conservatives who took this position were complicit in racism and the degradation of black Americans. At the very least, conservatives need to be called to account about it. Years later Buckley said the equivalent of "oops, my bad," which was hardly enough.

Response to Gestell
I am not surprised that someone would be irritated when, in the face of a problem like Jim Crow, they are faced with a conservative who says "solve the problem the right way; follow the process, or we'll only trade one set of problems for another." When you are feeling the immediate pain of the problem at hand, you tend not to care about such "trivial" matters as process. King frequently expressed his frustration with, as he called it, "the myth of time."

In our country the process of solving these kind of problems legislatively, through elected representatives of the people, works slowly. Because representative democracies are horribly inefficient, this leaves a lag time for people to do dumb and harmful things and for abuses to go uncorrected for an uncomfortably long time.

A totalitarian government, with power concentrated in the hands of unaccountable, dictatorial leadership, could certainly solve the problem more quickly and efficiently. Personally, I don't think trading the short-term degradation of black Americans for the long-term degradation of ALL Americans is the most useful solution. I'm not sure how Buckley would feel about it.

reply to Onesimus
I reject your premise that the way the civil rights problems were handled imposed some "long-term degradation of ALL Americans." In what specific ways do yo think "all" Americans were "degraded?" Was it by the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Was it by school desegregation? In what did the "degradation" actually consist? If what you mean is that limits were imposed on the right of Americans to discriminate on the basis of race, I don't really see how that "degrades" anyone. Is your point that someone is "degraded" if he or she can't act as a racist S.O.B.? My, how sensitive conservatives can be.

Reply to Gestell
You have creatively and deliberately distorted my point. Should I be surprised by this, or is your last post what passes for intellectual honesty for you?

My point is about the power and limits of government and goes well beyond the issue of Civil Rights. I think you and I would both agree that racism is an evil and it would be nice if people would just treat each other with respect and human dignity. My point is that a totalitarian government (which, hopefully, agrees with us that racism is bad) could fix the problem quickly and efficiently...and at cost.

That same all-powerful, fast-acting government can also decide that, for the public good, the house you worked your tail off to purchase would make a lovely highway and legally steal it from you. Or that you and your family do not really need a car, and you all have to ride bicycles "for the public good." I don't trust government to not cross that line and start abusing its power for some euphemistic "public good."

Hence, the conservative argument that the process is important. If you do the right thing the wrong way, you might get the result you want...this time. But it opens the door to fearful abuses, and might make the original problem look tame compared to what you end up with.

As far as the CRM goes...Jim Crow was a clear violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments. The federal government had a responsibility to act. But I would argue that for every '64 CRA and '65 VRA you've got a spectacular mess like busing, AFDC, and housing projects. The government waving its magic wand doesn't guarantee the problem will be solved...in fact, you are just as likely to get a spectacular disaster that exacerbates the very problems that is supposedly being fixed.

I don't expect you to agree with me. At least be intellectually honest enough to disagree with what I am actually saying rather building cute little straw men.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.