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
Monday, January 15, 2007
Harry R. Jackson, Jr. :: Townhall.com Columnist
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr: Conservative or Liberal?
by Harry R. Jackson, Jr.
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?


Both conservative and liberals quote Dr. King on this national holiday. Similar to the recent religious question – “What would Jesus do?” Many would-be social reformers attend to answer the question – “What would Martin do?”

Everything from legalizing gay marriage to withdrawal from Iraq have been couched in the terms: “Martin would have been for this!” The truth is that we can only take his speeches and writings and infer how he would have navigated the murky waters of the third millennium.

Therefore, before we start making pontifical statements about the nature of King’s direction, let’s review the history of which we are sure.

The first mass meeting of the Montgomery Improvement Association on December 5, 1955, attracted several thousand attendees. The newly elected president, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., was bold enough to describe the dilemma of black bus passengers and Rosa Park’s heroic act of civil disobedience committed just four days before.

Aware that discussing these issues candidly could ignite bitter, violent outbursts, King appealed to the faith of the African-American community. He encouraged his listeners to believe in the power of biblical justice. King’s sermon went one step further than most of that day by encouraging them to act on their belief in divine justice and use the American tradition of legal protest.

During the next 30 days, King received 30 to 40 threatening letters or phone calls each day. King wrote in “Stride Towards Freedom” that one night he received an ominous phone call just as he was about to doze off to sleep. The caller promised that before seven days passed, King would be sorry that he ever came to Montgomery, Alabama.

By his own admission, King was afraid and offered a desperate prayer from his kitchen table. He felt as though he could hear an inner voice saying, stand up for righteousness, stand up for truth; and God will be at your side forever.

Although King’s uncertainty disappeared, three days later his house was fire bombed. Steadied by his “kitchen prayer,” he boldly preached to the crowd that gathered outside of his badly damaged house. He sent them away with his own firebombs of love and faith instead a call to arms, riot or violent retaliation.

We celebrate Dr. King’s birthday not just because his courage and resolve advanced civil justice for blacks. His life was also a gift to all Americans. Today, his dream is a living legacy, which is still changing the nation.

There is no question that Dr. King was a great man. Yet he may not have been as unique as many would attempt to paint him. In all due respect to Martin Luther King, Jr., Rosa Parks, Ralph Abernathy, Andrew Young, and countless other civil rights luminaries, the black church was their spiritual mother. Each one of these leaders took their cues from the historic charter and mission that the Black church had set for itself.

Many excellent black churches commissioned their leaders to the dual role of biblical interpreter and social reformer. Just like the Old Testament prophets, black preachers have charged with the task of bringing a sense of divine justice to the social ills of their generation.

One strategic contribution was the church’s involvement in creating the first major black financial institutions: banks and life insurance companies. Black churches not only provided people with spiritual comfort and hope but also established an economic support system that served to lift their people.

The church emerged as a credible bridge to future financial power for financially cautious former slaves and their descendents. The church refused to wait for a government welfare agency or secular non-profit organizations to lead the way.

The black church remained vigilant through the years. Time and time again, she has risen up important leaders who were wedded to the unique needs of both their people and the American culture. For example, overcoming the devastation of the Great Depression was no easy task for anyone in America. Thankfully, new heroes arose in the black community to meet the challenge in the 1930s.

Some black churches held classes in the fundamentals of job seeking and household economics for people. In addition to public training, behind the scenes pastors negotiated access to jobs in hospitals, stores and schools. These jobs had been closed to blacks prior to that time.

Each generation has had several black leaders arise from the black church to innovatively guide its constituents. In light of this history, we return to the question – “What would Dr. King do today?”

King would most likely be a social conservative. He would attempt to protect families and the dignity of both working class people in the U.S. He would not ask big government’s permission to confront the Goliaths of poverty, crime, drug abuse and teen pregnancy that stalk urban America. King would rally local church leaders and begin to solve tangible problems through volunteerism.

Dr. King knew that the greatest obstacle to social advancement in both the black and the white communities is a lack of vision, courage and determination. In this regard King was like former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall who explained his enormous success in challenging the racially biased application of laws during the civil rights movement like this: “I did what I could with what I had.” Like Dr. King, that’s the best any of us can do.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Bishop Harry Jackson is chairman of the High Impact Leadership Coalition and senior pastor of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, MD, and co-authored, Personal Faith, Public Policy [FrontLine; March 2008] with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.

Be the first to read Harry Jackson's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

I agree
with the belief that Dr. King would have been a social conservative. Too many of todays leaders have used their positions to benefit only themselves, not the whole community.

However, I do have one question. Dr. King had a phone in the mid 1950's? It wasn't unitl 1967 that my parents got their first phone in their home. Maybe it was because, with thirteen kids, my parents were dirt poor. I just didn't know that home phones were all too prevalent back in the 50's.

Interesting
This morning I heard Juan Williams say that he thought MLK JR would be disappointed in the methods Jackson/Sharpton used today.

MLK JR would probably be in agreement with people like Bill Cosby, Dr. Williams, or even Condelezza Rice.

Groups that forment divisions between the races for profit and political gain would be opposites of his "I have a dream" tagline.

Maybe, maybe not
Mabe Dr. King would have been a social conservative, but he was most certainly not a conservative in any other sense. Dr. King was a big government leftist who was convinced that capitalism was destined to fall and be replaced by a socialist/communist utopia. And please, don't take my word for it, pick up a copy of "Where Do we Go From Here: Chaos or Community" by Dr. King. It was originally published in 1967 and conains some real gemsin the appendix.

I do respect Dr. King for the work he did in the Civil Rights era and commend him for his courageous leadership in a dangerous time. But it is high time that we stop with the deification of Dr. King and seperate the myth from the man.

Flagwaver, I'll Look for That
Maybe I am a little disappointed reading your comments on Dr. King. I will read "Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community."

Somehow still, I am sure in his violent death we lost someone who had a genuine faith in and trust of the Creator of us all. With that he could not have gone far into what some look at as a communist utopia.

This is one conservative who believes that Dr. King now lives in the presence of The Lord and that, in whatever way that happens, he is on our side, an advocate you might say, for freedom.

God bless Dr. King and his family.

MLK: Liberal in Conservative Clothing?
According to Jackson, MLK would be a conservative if still alive today. This is a tough call. King's stand for non-violence and his desire to help the underprivileged deserves unending praise. But he opposed the Vietnam War and was quiet liberal in some of his theology. (To my knowledge he never recanted his denial of Christ's bodily resurrection.) So, it wouldn't surprise me that King would have become a full-fledged liberal. He undoubtedly would have kept his devotion to the poor and oppressed but might have allowed it to become distorted by promoting causes like gay rights, a woman's right to choose, and more government money to fight poverty.

Kevin L. Howard, http://www.NeedNotFret.com

King was a liberal
It's clear that in King's day, he supported left economic proposals to better the conditions of African Americans and the poor. The march on Washington revolved around such issues and included folks not just with a history in the Democratic Party but also the labor movement and the Socialist Party (A. Phillip Randolph for instance).

His theological views were also liberal but this is lost mainly because we're not used to hearing authentic religious voices by liberals in the debate but in the 1950s and 1960s this was far more prevalent. His commitment to process forms of thought ( a school of thought known as personalism) as well as ideas from the Niebuhrs would find little to connect with today among present day evangelicals.

And of course his wife, ended up being a liberal advocate on many of these issues that the author of this piece would oppose. Being a liberal I find much to admire of King and his views and acts but the desire by the right to appropriate him always confused me and in that I think the motivation has to do with his standing today in American society and culture more than with any agreement on the issues of that day or today.

The Way We Wish it Was

.....Flagwaver...

.....I agree ...MLK would be a social conservative but he had a liberal/collectivist/Socialist/Communist viewpoint ...the editors who sing his praises should do a little research and learn who the man really was ...they won't though because they prefer their own little Liberal fantasy world ...

.....I remember an editorial in a Dallas newspaper several years ago exhorting white Dallsites to attend a MLK parade to show solidarity with the black community ...the following was my reply to the editorial staff ...

....."If I didn't know better I would have thought that your saturday editorial was written by Mary Poppins or Pollyanna ...it was fanciful wishful thinking far removed from reality ...If you think you can stand a dose of the real world ...I will explain to you why King's parade is strictly a "black" event ...

.....1. Blacks want it that way. King was a black leader assassinated by whites. Blacks see the event as a way to show solidarity against a white society that they believe oppresses them.

.....2. The parade route is through black neighborhoods. To think that whites would venture into this environment where they are not wanted is wishful thinking bordering on insanity...

.....Perhaps your editorial staff has forgotten the parade to honor the Dallas Cowboys a few years ago? ...Gangs of rowdy black hoodlums went on a rampage attacking every white person in sight ...I watched a young black sneak up behind a woman with a baby in her arms ...he spun her around and punched her in the face ...she was knocked to the ground ...only in the jungles of Vietnam had I ever witnessed an act as cowardly as that ...

.....So don't hold your breath waiting for white and black children to hold hands as brothers and sister ...not in this world ...that part of King's vision might have to wait until we join him in a Celestial afterlife ..."

..... that letter was written on Jan 18 several years ago ...it was not published ...Liberals don't like reality messing up their utopian fantasys .....COLOSSUS

MLK No Conservative
As a racial agitator and propagandist, MLK was talented in the extreme. Certainly his skill as a speaker and motivator cannot be disputed. However, I find it exceptionally hard to believe that anyone could consider him any kind of conservative or Constitutionalist.

His economic views were roughly the same as those of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. For example: his "Poor People's March" and March on Washington were directly designed to intimidate the government into increasing its social and welfare spending. His advocacy of special privileges ("affirmative action") for his people, while understandable given his origins and racial background, can hardly be squared with the pernicious egalitarianism that is feted in his name today. As a certain Prof. DiLorenzo might say, MLK was simply a modern-day Lincoln, with a different skin color.

His personal conduct certainly leaves room for doubt as to his fidelity to traditional beliefs. His plagiarism, his many sexual affairs, and his association with known Communists would certainly place him in the same ethical class as Bill Clinton and Al Sharpton were he alive today.

Far better to celebrate the real character and accomplishments of someone like General Robert E. Lee---a man whose honor, character and class were recognized even by his enemies---than to honor a deeply flawed person like King.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

judge people by their character

I don't know if MLK Jr. would be a liberal or a conservative, but I look forward to today's posts to see what people think.

I do, however, know what he would feel about affirmative action in colleges and in the workplace.

He would NOT want blacks to receive special treatment. He would want blacks to be treated the same, not worse, not better.

If a black is the best candidate, he should be hired or admitted to the school.

If a black is NOT the best candidate, he should not be hired or admitted.

People should be judged on the content of their character NOT the color of their skin.


Getting MLK right
Conservatives have no reason whatever to honor MLK. Hiss agenda was never really compatible with conservatism. As many people on the left love to point out, King's own position on the wisdom and necessity for a large, active government was far to the left of anything acceptable to the Right. He was more of a social democrat than a social conservative.

Even the original civil rights agenda was anathema to conservatives. If you doubt this, go back to the late 195s/early 1960s and read National Review or Human Events. Conservatives back then understood correctly that the civil rights movement represented an attack on conservative values. Much later, many conservatives loved to present themselves as supporters of civil rights, but this happened only to the extent that those conservatives fell prey to the siren song of political correctness.

Conservatives should regard MLK day as a huge mistake, as a memorial to a man who embodied many of the values conservatives should reject.

That many conservatives now praise King shows a lack of self-knowledge, political hypocrisy, or both.

MLK
If King could in any way be concidered a conservative, I want no part of it.

He used his race to get what he wanted, so I don't know about opposing affirmative action.

I believe it has been reported that he was a self described marxist. If you need a better understanding than that, quit listening to the sound bites and do some research.

Standing against conservative Christians
Many Americans consider Martin Luther King is considered great because he had the courage to stand against evil forces in America. The record clearly shows that those forces of evil were almost all conservative Christians.

Jackson writes: "King would most likely be a social conservative. He would attempt to protect families and the dignity of both working class people in the U.S. He would not ask big government’s permission to confront the Goliaths of poverty, crime, drug abuse and teen pregnancy that stalk urban America. King would rally local church leaders and begin to solve tangible problems through volunteerism." --

The positives in this are true and the negatives are false. King supported the LBJ "war on poverty" and he believed that the government should fight crime by providing economic opportunity to poor people so they would not become criminal. He also believed in volunteerism, but not as a replacement for government programs.

garbled
Sorry for the garbled first sentence -- incomplete editing. It should read: "Many Americans consider Martin Luther King great because he had the courage to stand against evil forces in America."

So what happened liberalgoodman ...
to make you so anti-Christian? I say anti-Christian and not anti-religion because virtually all of your posts, on almost all the threads I've read, deal with how bad Christians are but you never have a negative word to say about Islam or any other religion. Were you an altar boy by any chance?

BTW, Christ did have something to say about your moniker. In reply to someone who referred to Him as "Good teacher," Jesus replied "Why do you call me good? No one is good - except God alone."

where is the church today?
Thanks for pointing out Dr. King's efforts to help people without governmental involvement. In fact, the outcome of much of his work was to tear away government that was put in place to hinder African Americans and constrain everyone.

Not being a historian my memory may not be accurate, but wasn't an ordinance in place that required Rosa Parks to sit in the back of the bus? The effect of the boycot was to eliminate that regulation. I seem to remember Thomas Sowell writing that regulations such as that didn't exist in earlier days before the local government took over the bus service.

I'd like to see the church, in all it's variations, doing more to help the community so reliance on government would lessen.

Get creative gang and see what you can come up with!

Why is it
You know, maybe Dr. King would not wanted to be counted a friend by conservatives. I don't care. I don't think that would be the case, but it wouldn't ruin my weekend.

So, if you see me with a nonwhite friend enjoying dinner, a movie, or a board game, a cup of tea, do you get the ear of that nonwhite friend of mine later and advise him or her that I can't possibly be a true friend because I am a conservative?

In addition to where we can smoke, what we can eat, what we have to swallow as some kind of law, we now will be restricted as to who can come over to the house?

I just have to read that book someone wrote recently incidating that liberalism is a mental disorder.

Reply to scribe
Of course, you can continue to have a nonwhite friend. What you cannot do, if you want to be a consistent conservative, is to praise the civil rights movement, its goals, or the political views of MLK. The success of the civil rights movement marked a massive defeat for conservatism in the US. As a liberal, I was and continue to be happy that conservatism was handed a major defeat. Conservatives, however, should be under no illusions about the matter. The victory of the civil rights movement was a victory for liberalism, and conservatives should not succumb to fashionable pieties about MLK.

Gestell
The victory of the race-privilege ("civil rights") movement was a massive defeat for the notion of limited government. It was a massive defeat for the concept of private property---almost Kelo-scale in its enormity. It was a massive defeat for local rule and local freedom from Imperial control of local affairs.

You're right. It was a very, very saddening thing.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Ah, to live in a liberal fantasyland
Liberals do not like facts that go against the "Republicans are racist" programming they have tried to instill in the populace.

Go to wikipedia and look at ANY vote for a civil rights legislation. Republicans supported them in higher percentages than democrats in EVERY bill. It was a REPUBLICAN President who signed the Emancipation Proclamation. In fact, the Republican party was formed by the abolishionists.

Democrats were the one's who introduced Jim Crowe laws in the south. Democrats were the ones who had wiretapped MLK's phones. The shift of the Republican party to the South only happened when the Mcgovernite's took over the Democratic party and made abortion, euthanasia, socialism, and gay marriage pillars of the party. Democrats are still the one's who want to keep black's perpetually poor by ensuring they are dependent on a white liberal male's government program.

The fact is, in the context of MLK Jr.'s time, Blacks WERE NOT getting a fair shake. If you are to apply MLK's concepts to today's current situation, esp. given the events of the Duke Lacrosse case, he would have reminded you that blacks had to join their white brothers and sisters, not go on race crusades. Context is a concept lost of those who want to score cheap political points.

Reply to Brian
Of course, you're correct that Republicans supported civil rights and Southern Democrats were in opposition. But I wasn't talking about Republicans, I was talking about conservatives. Remember that in days past Republicans were not nearly so uniformly conservative as they have become in later years. Republicans had a liberal wing and a pragmatic, moderate, compromising middle. These were the folks who continued to support the "big government" Republican tradition associated with Lincoln, which included support for civil rights. Real conservative Republicans, like Barry Goldwater, were opponents of the civil rights movement, and voted accordingly in Congress. And conservatives were firm believers in states' rights, including the right of states to have race-based laws and public policies.

As I often say on TH, today's conservatives generally don't know much about their own history and thus occasionally fall prey to enthusiasms, such as encomiums to MLK, which they should not entertain at all.

Take from his legacy
That which is uplifting.
Yes, the man had many flaws.
He was human!
He was a womanizer.
He flirted with Communism.
He may have done many other foul deeds, however, take from his legacy the good and not, as Shakespeare said, believe that the good is oft interred with his bones.
King left us with many thoughts which should be acted upon such as:
>Character counts - not color.
That is the most important of all, IMHO.
Too bad the poverty pimps won't follow that wonderful teaching.
On the battlefield, all blood is red. And in this great country, unless we ALL hang together, we will surely all hang separately.

DESECRATING MARTIN LUTHER
IT IS A SHAME THAT SO MANY BLACKS ARE AT ODDS WITH THE TEACHING OF RESPONSIBILITY PUT TO THEM BY DR. KING. LET'S LOOK AT THE BLACK CAUCUS, A GROUP OF LIBERAL CONGRESSIONAL PEOPLE WHO CANNOT SEEM TO PUT FORTH AN ISSUE THAT DOES NOT DENIGRATE THE PLIGHT OF THOSE BLACK'S THAT STRUGGLE TO GAIN A FOOT HOLD IN SOCIETY. POLITICALLY OR ECONOMICALLY BEING BLACK AND TO HAVE CITED CONSERVATISM OR USED YOUR POSITION TO POINT OUT THE FALLACY OF LIBERAL THINKING, CHASTISEMENT AND OUT RIGHT OUT RAGE IS AIMED AT THOSE WHO CANNOT USE THE NAALCP THINKING TO ACT LIKE A PERSON BENT UPON SUCCESS AND PROUD OF RESPONSIBLE ACHIEVEMENT.

I FEEL CONFIDENT THAT THE NUMBERS ARE GROWING TO OUTGROW THIS SIMPLISTIC COMMUNAL TYPE THINKING IN THIS DAY AND AGE. I CITE THE FACT THAT THIS YEAR LESS BLACKS ACKNOWLEDGED THAN THE YEAR BEFORE AND I HOPE THE TREND KEEPS ON GROWING.

Birth of BS
It's so interesting to watch Republican BS get born on TH. Martin Luther King as a conservative is a great example. Here's a man who supported the LBJ "great society" and affirmative action, and opposed the Vietnam war. Conservatives of his day cheered when he was murdered. Now you say he was a conservative.

Why?? Because he went to church, and anyone in church conservative. And once launched, readers pick up the chant with full gusto, just like the Eurasia as enemy in 1984. Comments refute the original post entirely simply flutter by like autumn leaves.

Brian: surely you know that Democrats were the party of Christian bigotry in the South during most of the Martin Luther King times, with Republicans being the out of power liberals. The Nixon "southern strategy" changed all that. Those southern conservatives were so angry with the national Democratic party for forcing integration that they switched parties. And, of course, Nixon made sure they had candidates who shared their views.

Frog: I'm not anti Christian, but I do think many people who consider themselves Christian make wrong choices based on misunderstanding the Bible. The same could be said for other religions, but there are few of them on this blog.

Nice revisionist theory there goodman,
It still doesn't explain the voting record which remains consistent to today or why the Democratic party today is still filled with racists. Senator Byrd doesn't look too displeased with the Democratic Party as it is now or as it was when he was fresh out of the sheets. Guess he missed that whole "scism" thing caused by the all-powerful and well-loved Richard Nixon (wasn't he a Republican, btw? How would he cause Democrats to split from their party). They also have talking heads like Sharpton and Jackson who try to start race wars everywhere they go, never mind their allies in the media who tried to do everything they could to railroad the Duke players.

The reality of society as MLK faced it is different then the reality of today. It does seem unfortunate that many black civil rights leaders eventually became communists, but you can't bash their good work just because they ended up siding with the evil empire at the end of the life. Interestingly enough, communism did in fact make blacks and whites equal. It was just equal in decrepit poverty and powerlessness against cruel tyrants like Stalin.

It is always highly convenient to split Republicanism from conservatism when it allows a catch-22 to make liberals not appear to still be in the party of institutionalized racism. Why then, are the liberals of today still advocating the same thing they were 40 years ago? Why, it would appear they haven't changed at all. Ask Robert Byrd, he was in the Senate for that 1964 vote.

Lord Garth
Lord Garth: "Far better to celebrate the real character and accomplishments of someone like General Robert E. Lee---a man whose honor, character and class were recognized even by his enemies---than to honor a deeply flawed person like King."

I find this comment very interesting, and I am surprised to find myself to be the only one so far to comment(!) on it.

I dont think you will find an argument on the character and honor of General Lee. However, he WAS responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. Had he sat out the civil war, he would have done both North AND South a great deal of good.

It can also be argued that he was directly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of SOUTHERNERS through his aggressive tactics (eg Pickett's charge at Gettysburg).

Whatever about MLKs "character flaws", they are NOT worsened by unfavorable comparison to Lee's virtues, NOR are Lee's virtues any better through favorable comparison. Each man stands on his OWN merits.

But MLK DID address a great deal of what was in fact wrong with race relations in the States, with courage, and did so through peaceful means. I have no prob - as a conservative - in honoring him for this.

Blaming King for the growth of government is ridiculous. The Civil War itSELF was the first HUGE step towards big government. The second was FDRs reaction to the Great Depression. the third - WW2. It was WW2 which gave real impetus to the idea that "govt could solve everything" - leading to the last big step in the growth of government - Johnson's so-called "war on poverty."

A few points
I don't see King as being a traditional Liberal or a Conservative. Certainly he was left-of-center, as he was campaigning for higher wages for garbage collectors (who were mostly or all white, iirc) in Memphis when he was assassinated. Livable wages are good, right?

He was also extremely critical of the Vietnam war. I would suggest that those who think he would have been anything other than anti-war today would do well to read his speech entitled "Beyond Vietnam."

The thing about great men, though, is that they don't subscribe to the political ideologies of others.

As another example
Was Abraham Lincoln a liberal or a conservative?

The 14th Amendment which he helped spearhed eviscerated States' Rights.

He re-engineered a large part of American society.

He seems to have presided over the largest increase in the federal mandate in the history of the nation at that point.

He fought hard against the anti-immigration American Party (aka Know-Nothings).

Seems reasonable to suggest that Abraham Lincoln was a liberal.

Gestelle* writes

....."Conservatives back then (the sixties) understood correctly that the civil rights movement represented an attack on conservative values" ...

.....Gestelle* is correct...the Civil Rights Act was a huge defeat for conservatives ...I agree with Lord Karth on this ...it was a defeat for the concept of a limited government ...a defeat for freedom of the individual ...States Rights ...and local freedom from the Imperial control of an all powerful Central Government ...

.....Several years back I wrote an article entitled "LBJ's Great Society: Forty years later" ...in which I pointed out all of Lord Karth's points ...

.....As a veteran of Vietnam ...I view the sixties as a festering pustule that infected our society with a terminal disease ...Libs such as Gestelle* might be happy with the results but I saw it then ...and still see it now ...as the beginning of the end ...

....while the shine might be off the legacy of LBJ ...MLK has become enshrined as a saint-like figure and adopted by "conservatives" who have given in to PC revisionist history ...MLK made a great speech ...in this regard he was on a par with Lincoln ...both were great orators ...but I would as soon celebrate Karl Marx day as I would pay tribute to MLK .....COLOSSUS

Flagwaver is right
Flagwaver is right.

How any man who supported Communism by the 1960s can be considered "great" is beyond me. The mass famines and purges were well known by then. There had been reports of gulags, although not as widely reported on yet.

The fact is, despite the soaring rhetoric, MLK de facto supported, to one extent or another, the regime and methods of the greatest mass murderer in history, far beyond even Hitler.

Surely there are other leaders who would make better icons.

As for his womanizing, that's irrelevant to me for whether he should be honored or not.

Sorry Jimmy Joe,
You are judging a man from the hindsight of history. Robert E. Lee led a second American Revolution just as his fellow Virginian George Washington had led the first. Yes, General Lee made a very poor decision regarding Pickett's Charge, but to say that he should have never taken up Arms against an invading Army is a falacy that considers nothing worth fighting for.

Yes, it was an invading Army. Re-read your Constitution, with an unjaundiced eye. There was every expectation that States which had voluntary entered into this Union could withdraw when that union no longer served their needs.

General Lee is deserving of recognition for two distinct acts in his public career. First, when he realized that his army was no longer a viable force, he surrendered instead of pursuing a Guerilla War. Second, when he joined a former slave in takning Holy Communion at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Richmond, VA in 1865.

Now as for the matter at hand. I think MLK would have been a social conservative, but a political/policy liberal. I think he would have been extremely distressed at the condition of black family life. Given his intellect, and his willingness to consider new ideas, I believe that he would eventually come around to realizing that Social Welfare Programs have contributed more damage and impoverishment to Black Family Life than the KKK could ever dream of, but the truth is that I don't know. For all of these things have occured since MLK's death, so ultimately, none of us know how his leadership would have effected the reality that we now deal with on a daily basis.

John-of-Gilknockie and R.E Lee.
I think you mistook my point. What I actually SAID:

"I dont think you will find an argument on the character and honor of General Lee. However, he WAS responsible for tens of thousands of deaths. Had he sat out the civil war, he would have done both North AND South a great deal of good."

This is not a judgement based on the "hindsight of history." Lee himSELF was perfectly well aware of the facts I have outlined. I do not hold him MORALLY responsible for the unfortunate consequences of his decisions, which he NO DOUBT made with the HIGHEST of motives.

I consider his decision to side with "his own home, his own state" to be perfectly legitimate morally. So I need not "re-read the constitution" to see that.

But without his brilliance and leadership, the south would have been defeated sooner, with far less devestating consequences, for both North AND South. Nobody can KNOW that in advance, and the South wasnt predestined to lose. They could have won! It certainly wasnt Lee's fault that they didnt! But given that they eventually lost... etc.

I agree with you about his decision to surrender. But I dont see how you elevate his taking Communion with a "former slave" as being such a big deal. I would EXPECT that he would do that.

I would see his taking FULL responsibility for the debacle of Gettysburg as being one of his most agonising - but sublime - moments.

When he rides down and tells the men that it was "his fault".... That always moves one.

As for MLK, I think what prompted me to post was the unnecessary comparison with R E Lee. Personally, Lee has always been a hero to me, so nobody compares ANYway. But why denigrate MLK because he isNT Lee???

What MLK would have thought on the issues you mention in your last paragraph, I think you express that very well indeed.

JimmyJoe
I raise the communion issue because it revealed R.E. Lee's charachter in Peace. In rereading your post I concede that I took a few of your comments out of context. That said, ...

I still will not lay the casualties of the Civil War upon Robert E. Lee's shoulders anymore than I would lay the deaths of WWII upon Winston Churchill. As for the issue that the South would have lost quicker under less competent leadership, granted; however the argument could be made that the North would have lost if Lincoln hadn't replaced McClellan with Grant, but relying upon the stupidity of one's adversary is a formula for failure in military or business pursuits.

Finally, again, we are both viewing events through the prism of history. I am not confident that the Civil War could have been concluded any other way. If the South had been easily defeated in 1862, it is possible that the desire for combat would not have been so thoroughly extenguished as it was in 1865. The results could have been a long smoldering hatred that would have erupted 13 or 14 years later. Imagine the reaction if the Battle of Little Bighorn had coincided with a rebel attack on Washington, DC?


MLK:social conservative
I don't know what MLK would do now but we do know what he did do and what he stood for at the expense of his life. He laid down his life for his friends...
I had the priviledge of seeing for the first time a rerun of an interview MLK did on national TV with a white host, I believe the name was Douglas and another white guest.
MLK held his own with such dignity and clarity about his views on the Vietnam war and why he opposed it. If you did not know it was the 60's and MLK was dead, it could have been him talking about Iraq. I thought it appeared to be prophetic about the war in Iraq.
Thank God for rare leaders like MLK who stand up for what they believe and act on that belief and also happen to be a Christian who is black.
That is why his legacy still is sooo powerful and will continue despite all the critics, no matter what he would have been today. You can't argue with that, Mr. Liberal and Mr. Conservative!

John-of-Gilknockie
I am glad you raised the communion issue. I hadnt known that. When I commented on that, I should have stated that "I would EXPECT that of HIM" - capitalizing the HIM, so the meaning was completely clear. I think it is probable that BOTH of us in fact are great admirers of him.

But by comparison to his own sense of duty, and how he faced up to difficult moral decisions, including the one to finally surrender... I thought his taking of communion was a smaller issue. I also like the fact that he would never hear of his old adversary Grant being denigrated after the war in his presence.

When I "lay the deaths of thousands" on his shoulders, I do so - not as a matter of morality, but as a matter of FACT. I do not argue that he was morally responsible for those. Quite the OPPOSITE.

I am aware that when he was offered command of the Union army before the war, the thoughts of leading an army of invasion to the South filled him with horror. I think his decision to side with the South was perhaps another of those agonising moral decisions, and I believe he made the only choice a man of his character could make.

Well, if Lincoln hadnt replaced McClellan, then as a matter of FACT, the South could possibly have WON, and we would be saying that Lee's "aggressive tactics" SAVED thousands of lives by shortening the war!! No doubt that was his intention from the beginning to the dismal end!

Your final paragraph? MOST interesting. Issues I hadnt even thought too much about! Maybe it DID have to be a "big one" for the reasons you stated. I dont know.
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.