I have a dream that one day, people will stop the rhetoric over Dr. King…
There is some irony that a man who focused on the desire for unity, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is involved in a tug of war related to party politics. A piece written by Frances Rice is making the rounds of the internet, similar to this piece written on Why Martin Luther King was a Republican. You can read the piece in full on Maggie Thurber’s blog, the title of Rice’s piece is Democrats Smeared Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the 1960’s. I recommend heading over and reading it in full, but the part I want to focus on is this:
The relentless disparagement of Dr. King by Democrats led to his being physically assaulted and ultimately to his tragic death. In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
Prior to his death, Democrats bombed Dr. King’s home several times. The scurrilous efforts by the Democrats to harm Dr. King included spreading rumors that he was a Communist and accusing him of being a womanizer and a plagiarist.
First, this would mean that the King family is lying, since the King Center in Atlanta and others have stated that there is no evidence that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican and that he openly stated he voted for JFK. Which would mean, he supported that Democratic administration. In his autobiography, that was published after his death it states, he labeled the Republican national convention that nominated Goldwater a “frenzied wedding … of the KKK and the radical right.”
When the National Black Republican Association did a billboard campaign claiming King was a Republican; Martin Luther King III said, “It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican. It is even more outrageous to suggest that he would support the Republican Party of today, which has spent so much time and effort trying to suppress African American votes in Florida and many other states.”
This also ignores the role that J. Edgar Hoover played in the whole Martin Luther King story as well as why Robert Kennedy as Attorney General under his brother, John F. Kennedy ordered the wiretaps on King and what role that played later when Hoover declared Martin Luther King was the most “notorious liar” in the country. It also does not point out that when King took a public position on the Viet Nam war, that is when even some of his friends turned on him.
It’s not a simple scenario where you can try to blame the Democrats for somehow leading to the murder of Dr. King. You can actually read many of the speeches, sermons and some of the other information for yourself, I’ve spent hours at the King Papers Project and while I’m far from an expert, the discussion over claiming not only Democrats were responsible for King’s death but that he was a Republican during the time he was involved in the Civil Right’s movement is cropping up in quite a few places, it’s easy to see who’s quoting from Rice’s piece on this Plain Dealer article. It’s actually been out there for several years, at least on sites like freep.
As a life long northerner, who’s family has ties to both parties, it’s pretty illogical to have a whole party blamed for the actions of a geographical group or race. People do evil things for a variety of reasons, very few times is it because whatever political party they are registered to somehow created the evil. The division that led to the Civil War was based on geographic and economic reasons, the racism and the hatred in the South was not related to either national party and anyone who really knows their political history knows there were divisions in both the Democratic and the Republican Party. They also know that Martin Luther King’s father was a Republican who switched to the Democratic Party in the 60’s and went on to support Jimmy Carter as well as other Democrats.
Yes, this would mean, I don’t support the idea of a petition seeking an apology and admission of guilt by the Democratic Party by soon to be President Barack Obama due to the Democratic Party’s “150-year history of racism.”
No political party owned Martin Luther King, Jr., he was a man who stood up for what he believed in, even if it caused him problems, even if it lost him friends and even if it meant his life was at risk. If the motivation behind this is to educate people on the history of the Republican Party, most people probably don’t know some of the history and how people like a man from Ohio, John Bingham who was labeled a “Radical Republican” played a huge role in the 14th amendment being accepted. Maybe Martin Luther King, Jr. was a republican at one time, as most blacks were, but the Republican Party of today is not the same party it was then and it’s apparently clear that King both Jr. and Sr. said they voted for Democrats during the time period that the National Black Republican Party is claiming Democrats were the ones responsible for his death…
If anything the real lesson here is how political parties change and trying to provide just one part of the story, is part of the never ending games of selectivity, the never ending games of which party is “superior” when the reality is both parties have members that deserve kudos and those who don’t.
For me personally, it’s disappointing that we allow the alternating martyrdom and demonization of the deceased and the living…The truth will set you free; unfortunately too many people throw up so much rhetoric that it could almost take a life time to discover it, though someone who stated something like this:
“When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.”
It seems pretty easy to guess which party they’d probably be in support of today. Green…
Lisa – I have not read a lot on MLK, but I was a teenager when he was promoting his ideals and organizing marches. I was old enough to understand his words and form my own opinions.
In the mid 1960s I was quite taken with MLK. He was a man of vision, forward thought, introspection and certainly had a vision of what he prayed the country would become.
I never tagged him as a Democrat or a Republican. But I always believed him to be an independent soul guided by a higher power. Independent enough to dare to speak the words of peace and unity that crossed those awful lines of race and color.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a man that was placed on this earth 40 years too early. His messages, in today’s world, would be so welcomed and taken to heart.
We, the world, lost a good man in Memphis. Just my opinion.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:02 amI would not disagree with your description of him at all, if he would have not been murdered and had continued focusing on the issues, I often wonder at times what would have been the result.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:15 amThis type of rhetoric is not party politics, its racial politics. The flow of power and money associated with racial politics is in jeopardy now that our nation has successfully elected an African American to the office of President. Racial politics feeds on conflict and now those invested and reliant upon racial conflict for their income and their power are recognizing their greatest fear – the perception of victory.
So what to do now? We won? No. We need to broaden our conflict. Create one if necessary, redefine the mission, rewrite history, whatever, but we’ve got to keep the machine running and filled with gas.
The Democrats are in power now, and tomorrow could be a great day in the history of America for anyone who has felt oppression as a consequence of being a minority. For many this is a moment that has taken way too long to arrive. But the day may have a shadow cast upon it by fringe, racially charged interlopers working to seize the moment and draw attention away from progress toward their own mission. This leads me to question the sincerity of their mission. Is it to attain racial peace and equality, or is it perpetually to declare war?
January 19th, 2009 at 10:38 amYour last sentence struck a chord with me, VoR:
Is it to attain racial peace and equality, or is it perpetually to declare war?
I think it would be fair to say on both sides there are some who have declared war for so long, that they don’t know how to stop.
January 19th, 2009 at 10:49 am“I think it would be fair to say on both sides there are some who have declared war for so long, that they don’t know how to stop.”
No doubt about it Lisa. I believe that the practitioners of racial politics will continue to declare war on whomever is in power and that is why they have recently attacked the Democrats in the manner outlined in your paragraphs above. They will stop at nothing in their attempts to extort power by assigning guilt. Guilty or not, those who stand against this extortion are considered the enemy.
The true enemy, the people who practice hate and true racial discrimination don’t seem as focused on political power. Most seem to do it out of absolute ignorance, stupidity and insecurity. Both sides are a real threat to the human foundation of our country, and we should have the courage to openly condemn both sides for their destructive behavior.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:20 amThat’s where the courage really comes in, it’s very easy to condemn those who are not “on our side” but it’s hard for many to condemn those who are. Most times all we get is empty rhetoric or justifications as to why they feel it’s different.
It’s going to be a challenge for the “old guard” on both sides to look at themselves, what their goals were and where they should go from here.
January 19th, 2009 at 11:37 amThere always seems to be someone or some group that wants to rewrite history to suit their particular political philosophy, vision or mission. I view this as an example,
King and his message, stands above, and transcends party and partisan politics. Those of us who value his ideals, goals and struggle can not let his work be maligned simply because King was a man with all the human frailties and faults inherent in our species that others wish us to focus on instead of his body of work.
At the time, many were suspicious of his work and motives. Change is chaotic and uncomfortable and his message challenged the status quo and our view of race and the human condition.
Today we celebrate those values and ideals that make us all better people and King’s sacrifice to make it part of the American dream. There is work to be done, but his inspiration will keep us on the path of positive change.
January 19th, 2009 at 1:58 pmIt’s beyond pettiness that people like Rice would play politics with Dr King’s message
January 19th, 2009 at 4:49 pmIt is with great happiness to watch as our 44th president of the United States of America, Barack Obama take his oath.
However, the work is not done. This work that I speak of does not fall on the shoulders of President Obama alone. This work may only be accomplished through the hearts and souls of those who truly believe in the American Dream.
Does the United States have it’s first African-American president? Yes.
But as long as there are people starving, the dream is not fulfilled. There is work to be done. As long as people are homeless, the dream has not been fulfilled, there is work to be done. As long as we have absent fathers, and single-parent mothers, the dream is not fulfilled. There is still work to be done. As long as people struggle to survive and have to choose between shoes for their children, or healthcare…There is still work to be done! As long as we are in this financial crisis, and fighting 2 wars, there is still work to be done. As long as we have high dropout rates, and high incarceration rates, there is still work to be done!
This dream that I speak about is not limited to any particular person, regardless of color or creed.
For there is only one race. And that race is the human race. That race is deeply rooted in love. We must learn to love each other as we love ourselves. At that point, at that moment…perhaps the American Dream will be fulfilled!
January 20th, 2009 at 2:55 pmPink Slip,
The only problem you have with the Rice essay is that is historically accurate.
Richard Russell, Robert Byrd, and other southern Democrats perpetuated racism for decades. While modern Democrats have rejected that approach, there is no denying that it was the Democrats who institutionalized racism in the south and maintained Jim Crow well into the 20th century.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:02 pmBeautiful words, Bishop. Nicely expressed thoughts that should be shared by all Americans.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:03 pmIt’s not historically accurate, MEN perpetuated racism, and murder and violence, it had nothing to do with what political party they were involved in. Hoover disliked King, felt he was a danger and that he had ties to communism. He was not a Democrat…nor were many of those who took issue with King.
It’s an attempt to paint one party in a negative light while not being historically accurate. If the goal was historic accuracy it would not be selective in it’s blame or credit.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:06 pmYes, Lisa, you are correct that racism in the south was perpetuated by men who were not smart enough to spell the word “Democrat”
However, it was INSTITUTIONALIZED by congressional Democrats. It started when President Hayes ended Reconstruction and Democrats took over the south. Richard Russell stands as the strongest proponent of segregation in the 20th century and yet a Senate office building bears his name.
Hayes was wrong to end Reconstruction so abruptly without maintaining the rights of southern blacks to vote and enjoy all of the rights of an American. But Democrats legislated Jim Crow and perpetuated Jim Crow as an institution. They own that.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:14 pmLast I looked Brian, people elected Congressmen…
January 20th, 2009 at 3:16 pmBrian, the author’s intent is transparent–to claim the good Dr’s message as a “Republican” message. Now you know as well as anyone that comparing political parties of different eras is futile. Some of my favorite political figures were Republicans. But they were from different eras. If Dr King were alive today, not many people would associate him with today’s Republican Party. And quite frankly, today’s GOP would be too busy smearing Dr King instead of listening to the message. If the author truly wanted to celebrate the man, political parties wouldn’t have been mentioned–because they are so unimportant
January 20th, 2009 at 9:20 pmBrian Schwartz,
It is also “historically accurate” that most of those racist Southern Democrats who survived past the modern Civil Rights movement switched to the Republican Party. Strom Thurmond comes to mind immediately, but there were many others as well. Former KKK Grand Dragon, David Duke, almost won the governorship of Louisiana in the 1990s by beating out every other Republican for the right to face a Democrat, Edwin Edwards, who was a convicted criminal. According to reliable exit polling, Duke obtained 60% of the white vote in the General Election that year. Edwards won by drawing 95% of the African-American vote. There were bumper stickers in that campaign that urged people to “Vote for the crook.”
Racism knows no political party. Racism knows no geographic limitations. Racism has not ended with the election of Barack Obama. One glaring example is in the political body that President Obama leaves — the United States Senate. Of 100 Senators, it looks as though we will have 1 African-American member. In the 2006 election in Ohio, every African-American statewide candidate, 2 Democrats, 1 Republican, lost!
Martin King’s dream is closer to reality now than at any time in our nation’s history, but we still have, as a great American poet once wrote, “…miles to go before we sleep.” Let us all commit ourselves to crossing party lines to work on the most worthy goal of equal opportunity for all Americans.
January 20th, 2009 at 9:30 pmDP – but wouldn’t “vote for the crook” [sorry, but am laughing as I type]… wouldn’t that be a good bumper sticker for most elections, where at least one of the contenders usually is one? I mean after all a majority of senators just recently stole billions from taxpayers to give to privately owned commercial banks. And many of them, including one of our own, are thoughtfully considering and/or deciding not to run for re-election. Anyhow, thanks for my best laugh of the weekend.
January 24th, 2009 at 1:23 pmTruthseeker
First of all, let me make a slight change in the bumper sticker quote. It read “Vote for the crook…it’s important!” Edwin Edwards, “the crook”, was convicted in a court of law. While you might feel that Congress acted improperly, they did nothing illegal, albeit it may have been improper and even immoral.
IMO…There are as many or more “crooks” in the private sector as in government. I don’t agree with those who think that our govenrment is corrupt and our private sector is, basically, honest and upright. After all, if our private sector had lived up to its responsibilites as restrictions and regulations were eased and eliminated, the great government give-away would have been unnecessary. Gigantic corporate businesses sold many of us on the idea that government over-regulation was stifling our economy. They took their greater freedom, mixed in greed and incompetence, and gave us a formula for the economic disaster we are currently experiencing. Aren’t we all glad that President Bush’s great idea to “save Social Security” by creating individual accounts for Americans to invest their Social Security acoount money in the stock market, never passed Congress?? And Bush was so proud of being the first MBA to be President. Some expert on the economy he proved to be!
January 24th, 2009 at 6:12 pm