MLK's Radicalism

Kai Wright has an excellent piece on the forgotten radicalism of Martin Luther King, Jr. -- always a point worth making in a day and age when conservatives would like you to think they would have been standing right beside King when he marched on Washington.

That said, to some extent I think the creation of the King Myth and the displacement of the more authentic radical King is a good thing. A country doesn't get official national hero types without mythologizing and sanitizing them to a large extent, and it's a good thing, at the end of the day, that King has moved into national hero status. That said, check out King preaching on Vietnam:

That's some strong medicine.

Comments

That said, to some extent I think the creation of the King Myth and the displacement of the more authentic radical King is a good thing. A country doesn't get official national hero types without mythologizing and sanitizing them to a large extent, and it's a good thing, at the end of the day, that King has moved into national hero status.

Is this serious? I can't believe you mean this. But I'm having a hard time detecting the irony, if it's lurking beneath the surface.

Posted by Ari | April 4, 2008 3:21 PM

Radical? This depends on what lens you're looking through, as it always is.

Opposing a war that hundreds of thousands of people oppose is not radical. Articulating the painful reasons why opposition exists is radical, but only to those who reject that enlightened view.

Demanding equality is also not radical, except to those who reject that enlightened view.

And so on. It begs the question, is brutal honesty radical?

Posted by AKBY | April 4, 2008 3:35 PM

Yes AKBY, I believe in this day and age it is.

Posted by Lesley | April 4, 2008 3:44 PM

What, in the good old USA? It's the most radical thing there is. You see any of it in official public life or the MSM??

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 4, 2008 3:44 PM

What Ari is getting at: Isn't MLK the prime example of a national hero who's been "mythologized"? I mean, in the conservative mind (and to be fair, in the minds of many others) MLK just gave the "I Have A Dream Speech." The end. But signing on to that is easy. It's the other stuff that made King heroic, but its also the sames stuff that conservatives can't stomach.

Posted by Francisco The Man | April 4, 2008 3:47 PM

"One must always try to be as radical as reality itself." MLK lived up to that injunction in a way few of us have.

Posted by Jeet Heer | April 4, 2008 3:48 PM

It's the radicalism- and the lack of any fear of the consequences of alienating his wishy-washy mainstream supporters- that make King a truly great man, far more than "I Have A Dream". Someday we'll catch up with him, but sadly I don't think it will be in my lifetime.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 4, 2008 3:51 PM

Another good article on the radical King: http://www.isreview.org/issues/58/feat-MLK.shtml

Oh, and while I'm quoting socialists:

During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names to a certain extent for the “consolation” of the oppressed classes and with the object of duping the latter, while at the same time robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge and vulgarizing it.

Posted by Kalkin | April 4, 2008 3:59 PM

Thank you for putting up that speech. It is strong medicine as you pointed out, but it is a wonderful reminder that protest and dissent are not at odds with patriotism. Rather, true patriotism is defined by it. MLK was a product of America, not an opposition to America. For this, I am so proud.

Posted by Steve Johnson | April 4, 2008 4:02 PM

Conservatives at the time understood his "radicalism," and that's why they weren't standing shoulder to shoulder with him back in the day. All you have to do is read the words of the recently-canonized, St. William f. Buckley, on race and equality, in 1957, to fully grasp the evil of mainstream conservatism, even in its most "respectable" guise:

"The central question that emerges--and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog 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 in which 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."

He was a stone racist. And so is the modern incarnation of the movement he founded.

Posted by Egypt Steve | April 4, 2008 4:06 PM

I think Matt's point is that, realistically, we can choose one. Either King the national hero, or King the radical. I can see the point, but it's a little hard to take from someone whose economic policy preferences are deeply at odds with King's radical program.

That is, take the ideal world, where King is remembered equally as a national hero and a radical. That would require the canonization of his revolutionary program as nationally honored. Matt would oppose that, quite strongly. He's aligned with the neoliberals, DeLong and Rubin. So, he's not actually losing quite so much in the way that King's image has been airbrushed. King's image has been airbrushed to make his policy preferences much closer to Yglesias' than they actually were.

Posted by DivGuy | April 4, 2008 4:08 PM

What's the value of having MLK mythologized in such a way that we no longer even attempt to live up to his example or vision?

Notice how MLK comes up in our political discussions these days. It's rarely about ideology or policy, it's about paying your rhetorical dues. In the case of Hillary Clinton, she was bashed for not giving credit to MLK.

Posted by ChrisWWW | April 4, 2008 4:19 PM

Matthew,

Why is it OK to mythologize MLK as a national hero and not JFK? (I seem to recall you citing with approval someone from The Corner, maybe Ramesh, saying that JFK was a mediocre president.)

Greatness isn't all about what legislation you passed.

Posted by ohiomeister | April 4, 2008 4:30 PM

Martin Luther King took the Gospel seriously, the way conservative preachers take the rest of the Bible except the Gospel.

One of the advantages I can see to having him whitewashed enough to get a holiday, is that it guarantees that at least once a year we can discuss his non-whitewashed vision.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | April 4, 2008 4:38 PM

I agree that King as a figure has been watered down, but I don't see him as all that radical -- or, at least, I don't find his radicalism objectionable. I think Letter From a Birmingham Jail is one of the most inspiring things I've ever read.

I mean, what are the radical ideas we're talking about here? That blacks shouldn't wait around until whites deign to offer them equal rights, and should instead, by means of non-violent protest and community action, demand that their rights be acknowledged? That racism has been used to foster economic disparity among whites as well as blacks? That Vietnam was a bad idea with a terrible cost?

I know not everybody in the country gets behind those ideas, but it's not exactly Robespierre either.

Posted by Royko | April 4, 2008 4:52 PM

It should be noted that Christianity was founded by a radical revolutionary.

Posted by Chad | April 4, 2008 4:55 PM

BTW, it's worth noting that McCain was booed at his MLS speech today.

Ouch.

Posted by AKBY | April 4, 2008 5:02 PM

Matt,

Thank you for the MLK speech. But is the partisan reflection necessary? Is it even germane?

I just wonder if its necessary for conservatives, who agree with MLK on his "I have a dream speech," to agree with his statements on Vietnam. I won't vote for McCain, but does that dishonor his service to our country and the torture he has endured?

The premise of your comments suggests conservatives would have to know MLK's whole politics to stand with him on his most defining stance. This premise is in itself partisan.

Posted by Kuros | April 4, 2008 5:21 PM

Yeah, damn that truth, always getting in the way of good story.

Posted by converse | April 4, 2008 5:22 PM

This speech sounds so much more civilized than most of the jingoistic crap that comes out of modern politics. But I guess back then everyone had to demonize communists, just like now we can't consider Islamists anything but evil.

Posted by Beth | April 4, 2008 5:54 PM

"It's the radicalism- and the lack of any fear of the consequences of alienating his wishy-washy mainstream supporters- that make King a truly great man, far more than "I Have A Dream". Someday we'll catch up with him, but sadly I don't think it will be in my lifetime."

Amen to that. I find the speeches of the final 2 years to be some of the most truthful and moving of King's career. He speaks convincingly not only about the relationship between morality and society but also the costs of horrific war in lives and dollars.

Our generation desperately needs a figure like King.

Posted by Scott Kern | April 4, 2008 6:23 PM

From all the blathering about Martin Luther King's radicalization its pretty obvious that most of the posters didn't even listen to the speech.

What I took away from listening to the speech was that Martin Luther King could easily make the same speech today just by changing the name of the war from Vietnam to Iraq. And he would have about 60% of the country agreeing with him, that doesn't sound too radical to me.

Being this was the first time I had heard the speech, it was shocking to me how many of the things he mentioned in conjunction with the Vietnam War are relevant today in regards to the Iraq War. Anti-war protesters being called disloyal, the poor being used as cannon fodder, the quality of our "local allies", the difference in the money being appropriated for the war versus the amount applied to domestic problems.

Sadly in my eyes this is not radical speech, it is prophetic speech and we didn't listen.

Posted by Loviatar | April 4, 2008 8:41 PM

If MLK have survived, he'd have enjoyed roughly the same career as his protege Jesse Jackson did post-1968.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 4, 2008 8:47 PM

Delicious Pundit:

Martin Luther King took the Gospel seriously, the way conservative preachers take the rest of the Bible except the Gospel.

What exactly do you mean by "the Gospel?"

Posted by Glaivester | April 4, 2008 9:45 PM

If MLK have survived, he'd have enjoyed roughly the same career as his protege Jesse Jackson did post-1968.

Wow, what a slur. Jesse Jackson was an opportunist and a publicity hound. King had many other proteges who did great things for the civil rights movement after he died.

I get the feeling the person who posted this doesn't have a lot of sympathy for Dr. King's agenda.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 4, 2008 11:13 PM

Does Sailer ever write a comment without a racial angle?

Posted by nbt | April 4, 2008 11:55 PM

MLK's sanitization involved many odious things that were initially swept aside in martyrdom. Then the King Myth was sort of agreed on by black leaders and the media, Ruling Elites. Accolade after accolade and full PC in the 70s -90s against criticising him puffed him up further and further.
Part of the agreement was that other Civil Rights leaders would be swept aside. to better facilitate national celebration of King under the Single Great Man of History Theory - of the Black Moses of his famous speech who by force of his supreme goodness and vision and elequence led his sorry people into the promised land.

This is "Saint Martin", or the "Race Unifier", or "the Greatest, Purest American Who Ever Lived." And children in America, like the children in N Korea, vie to outdo one another in essays they write then read in class praising the "Dear Leader", and how "Dear Leader" inspires their lives.
In elementary school, they now spend more time watching his stuff and laudatory movies and "studying his heroic history" than they do on any President...

Much of the biographical material that brings into question many of King's ideas and his lifestyle are banned from textbooks and popular media by his adulatory fans, many in very powerful positions. Any skepticism of the Magnificence of the Reverend is called "racism". And professional hagiographers paid by liberal academia and by the Federal Government itself to further the Myth.

People who wish to get the full picture of King's life, warts and all, can find a few objective bios out there that note the drug and alcohol use, beatings of women, plagarism, diversion of church funds to paying off prostitutes he abused, his radicalism, and his long association with communists. His mentor, part-time speechwriter, lawyer, and accountant was Stanley Levinson, a NYC Communist.
And they can read about other Civil Rights leaders grave reservations about King hgging credit, misuse of SCLC donations on his personal "needs", and his radicalism and association with atheist and Jewish NYC communists...
Much of what King said is locked away in the King Foundation, most of what is shown on TV is carefully selected "Obama-style feel-good rhetoric" rather than his controversial substantive radical stuff, wild economic theories, and mostly discredited future predictions about blossoming black-run US cities and foreign countries. And what is released to the media, despite abundant Federal money going to the King Foundation, is on a "pay-per-view" basis - with money going to the King Family.

And so much of what King said or wrote was plagarized that descendents of the men King took stuff from, are now and have in the past sought settlements from the millions Kings purloined words and thoughts have netted the King Family from his books and speeches - including the "I have a Dream" speech which is 1/3rd lifted from another Reverend.
Researchers determined that that "plagiarism was a general pattern evident in nearly all of his academic writings" including his doctoral dissertation. That his wife, Coretta, who served as his secretary since he worked on his Masters, was a collaborator in the plagarism, and that post-academia, plagarism followed that same general pattern - evident in most of his work product...

And the worst of the stuff, King's FBI files that record him beating and paying off black and white prostitutes, his meetings with NYC people who were Soviet agents known or unknown to King at the time about Vietnam protests and support of communist proxies in wars of liberation? His discussions with followers of hiding cash donations to the SCLC from the IRS and using them for his inner circle's personal expenses? All evidence from FBI survillance authorized by Robert F. Kennedy after King's communist ties became clear were put under lock and key by a Federal Judge sympathetic to King's cause, and barred from scholars researching "Our Greatest National Hero", until 2027.

The Myth-Makers have marketed and packaged Saint Martin well, but also probably set him up for one of history's greatest falls from grace since the Cult of Stalin was discredited.

Posted by chris ford | April 5, 2008 12:15 AM

Chris Ford's been spending a bit of time on Stormfront, it appears. King was an adulterer, that's well known, but this stuff about embezzling funds so he could hire white prostitutes to beat is pure racial/sexual paranoia:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/mlking.asp

Posted by Kalkin | April 5, 2008 12:53 AM

Part of the problem with whitewashing King's legacy has been the degree to which people who think dissent is treason can pretend to embrace a figure that their intellectual and ideological forefathers despised. King didn't just stand up and say kumbaya, he challenged much of the very ideological foundations of American society up to that point. We had embraced ethnic democracy and racial mercantilism, both of which used the state to privilege white people at the expense of black people. We had embraced using the standard of one's foreign policy militarism and willingness to kill people who weren't white, the more brutally the better, as a metric of one's patriotism. King rejected this. Whitewashing his memory means that the types of Lynne Cheney (whose husband voted to not pressure South Africa to free Mandela because he saw Mandela as a terrorist) can write about King in her children's book and act like she's embracing his memory. Bullshit. Aaron MacGruder was right that if King was alive today, he would be called a communist traitor. King was a greater patriot than anyone responsible for the Vietnam War back then or the Iraq War today. We've had four social contract moments in American history that have built on each other with the Constitution, Reconstruction and the New Deal being the first three. The Civil Rights Movement was the fourth.

Posted by Reality Man | April 5, 2008 1:10 AM

chris ford and Sailer are just angry that King was more a of a patriot than they'll ever be.

Posted by Reality Man | April 5, 2008 1:38 AM

Chris Ford's been spending a bit of time on Stormfront, it appears. King was an adulterer, that's well known, but this stuff about embezzling funds so he could hire white prostitutes to beat is pure racial/sexual paranoia

Hardly, That comes from the memoirs of WC Sullivan at the FBI, who commented after a Federal judge put Kings FBI files under lock and key unti 60 years after his death. Sullivan, who supervised communist counterintelligence, said that that was part of what they found out on King through surveillance and wiretapping RFK authorized on Stanley Levinson and MLK, as the man Levinson was sent to work with. Another thing Sullivan said is that a six-man surveillance team was across from the Lorraine motel, saw him get shot on the balcony, and they were the ones photo's doing 1st Aid. And, wiretaps at the hotel and photos of people coming and going show 2 prostitutes, one white one black, arriving to service a drunken MLK, with King preaching to them that he was fucking for God.

Only another 20 years to go until Kings files are supposed to be released, but by then he might have been elevated all the way to Godhood and his followers will demand another 60 years of what King did with whores, communists, drugs, and SCLC funds be concealed by a MLK-friendly judge.

chris ford and Sailer are just angry that King was more a of a patriot than they'll ever be.
Posted by Reality Man

By your logic, from the stupid Lefty Maxim that "all dissent is patriotic", the greatest Patriots of the last 100 years are Vidkun Quisling, Lord Haw-Haw, Adam Gadan, Jane Fonda, George Soros, the various Tokyo Roses, the AQ patriots who "dissented" with the Saudi and Egyptian governments, and Noam Chomsky.

Posted by chris ford | April 5, 2008 2:58 AM

As Chris Ford demonstrates, conservatives, racists, and imperialists have not forgotten King's radicalism, and its power is still utterly terrifying to them.

Posted by Mick | April 5, 2008 4:21 AM

By the way - dig how Chris subtly identified an anti-war actress, a charitable billionaire, and a dissident professor with Nazi client governors and mass-murdering non-state terrorists. To a certain breed of lunatic, completely peaceful dissent is as scary as -- or scarier than -- outright terrorism.

Posted by Mick | April 5, 2008 4:29 AM

The early civil rights movement was powered by middle class church goers and focused on segregation. Once the movement grew and spread beyond the deep South, MLK grew more radical as he focused on issues beyond segregation.

The mythical King ends in 1963 because afterwards he focused on conditions in the urban North, American militarism and economic justice. While the vast majority of Americans now believe segregation/racism were wrong, there is no such consensus regarding King's later campaigns.

Posted by liberty and economic justice for all | April 5, 2008 5:32 AM

I don't mind MLK's use of bible blah blah since he is speaking to his choir. However, his reference to Nietzsche at about 17 minutes is either ignorant or dishonest. He implies that people influenced by Nietzsche are the warmongers and thus that Nietzsche's philosophy somehow favors war and was somehow responsible for the one in Vietnam.

Nietzsche associated xianity with nihilism and often criticized its anti-life dogma. He was in favor of people benefiting from the only life they will know, and god and religion were a block to that. We still see xian nihilism in end-time preachers today like Hagee and Parsley, spiritual gurus of McCain. Hagee wants a war on Iran because he thinks it will bring on Armageddon.

If Jesus was a revolutionary, it was in the worst sense of the word. However, there is so much contradiction in the gospels that it is hard to make out any coherent message.

Posted by bernarda | April 5, 2008 5:38 AM

Somehow I don't remember Jane Fonda and George Soros railing against fellow Americans of African-American, Arab and Jewish descent as practically subhuman. Racism and intolerance are anti-American. The KKK is not a paragon of American patriotism. People who think patriotism is loyalty to a false 1950's vision of America without dissent, any "uppity" ethnic minorities, women or LGBT's who fight for their rights, multiple religious traditions, etc. are not patriots; they are just delusional throwbacks. King and his vision are part of our national heritage now and hating him and racial tolerance are anti-American. Racists are anti-Americans who simply wrap themselves in the flag while carrying the cross. If you don't accept racial acceptance, you are against the actual America people are forging today.

Posted by Reality Man | April 5, 2008 6:18 AM