What Does a Conservative Do on Martin Luther King Day?

The Claremont Institute ^ | January 17, 2005 | Ken Masugi

[Stoat]

What Does a Conservative Do on Martin Luther King Day?

 

How should conservatives celebrate Martin Luther King Day? We can honor the high-minded, patriotic side of King, who spoke of the American Dream, of a color-blind society that evaluates people on “the content of their character.” That would truly be an aristocracy of merit, a conservative idea if there ever was one. This King was the one calling us back to the ideals of the American Founding and reminding us that its legacy was not fully enjoyed by all. In this view, the Civil Rights Revolution, for which he became the principal (though by no means sole) spokesman, flowed from the American Revolution and completed the constitutionalism demanded by it. This King revived regard for the fundamental institutions of this country, cruelly and unjustly denied by a faction. Shelby Steele brings out this King most admirably.

But there is the other King conservatives loath—and with good reason. This King stressed unlawful action (civil disobedience) where bargaining with local notables might have prevailed. He lobbied for the extension of the welfare state, with all its disastrous consequences, in the claimants and in the growth of the bureaucracy. Moreover, he irresponsibly attacked his own country on the issue of Vietnam. He provided legitimate cover for a radical left that contained the worst elements of American life, posing as our true patriots. His crowning achievement, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, turned out to be a vehicle for the centralized regulation of political life. A plain reading of it sought to relieve individual injuries to one’s civil rights; the bureaucratic interpretation (the one that has prevailed) established group remedies, hiring and promotion quotas, and the emphasis on race-based solutions that bedevil our laws today. Similarly, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has subordinated state and local governments to the whims of the Justice Department. Thus King's version of equality cut off the relationship between the civil rights cause and the ideals of the American Founding; far from protecting limited, constitutional government his vision led to unlimited government. And all this does not mention the plagiarism and infidelity that infected his character.

Despite its equality on the federal holiday calendar, we cannot honor Martin Luther King Day with the same solemnity or joy we offer any number of other federal holidays. There were surely better approaches to establishing equal civil and political rights for all than the path which led from Brown v. Board of Education to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, as they have come to be interpreted and then modified, not to mention the detour of the Great Society welfare state. But King has become that focus, that shorthand, for the road to equal rights, from Birmingham to the Lincoln Memorial. It would be worse than pointless to abolish the holiday. The just cause transcends the man. We must focus our attention on that cause. In doing so, it would be far better to honor the better angels of King’s character in the Presidents we honor next month—Washington and Lincoln.

[Badray]

"Would it be appropriate to say that much of King's work was Church-based? (A point that the Left likes to hurry past, it seems) Black America, at that time, was very religious and far stronger as families than they are today. Somewhere between Selma and the Great Society, God was erased from the equation and replaced by the Welfare Check. Was it King himself who did this or white liberal Government bureaucrats who condescendingly ripped away people's pride and sense of self-worth because 'they need our help'? I tend to feel that it was more the latter, who continue to wrap themselves in King's mantle while gutting the heart of his intent."

Being as I don't (didn't) trust King, I have to say that the church was a convenient cloak both to give credence to his actions and to divert the church from the role of saving souls.

Mind you, I am not suggesting that there weren't wrongs that needed to be righted or that the church doesn't have a role in helping the community, but the church's primary mission is to preach the gospel and save souls.

[TexasRepublic]

I worked - a suitable protest against that socialist.

[CSM]

"That's a ridiculous argument. Any country where some citizens are allowed to discriminate against other citizens in public facilities because of the color of their skin or ethnic background is not one I want to live in. Ending discrimination by race was a good thing...period! No wonder libertarians can't get more than one percent of the vote."

I tend to think it would have still happened, with the power of the free market. Might not have been as quick, but it would be more thorough. I think if the market were allowed to work and if we had supported the private property rights then the disparity between races would not exist today.

These are just my thoughts, and yes I can't even begin to imagine the pure, unadulterated racism that existed in that time. I agree that it is a blight on American history. But I tend to think the blight would be much forgotten if the solution was found in the market and left to the individual. The government is the absolute worst way to solve social problems.

Do you support adding sexual deviant behaviour to the civil rights legislation and forcing private property owners and private business owners to not be allowed to discriminate against certain sexual behaviours? If not, why not? No, I am not equating the race issue with behavioural choices. I am asking if one discrimination should be allowed and not another.

[Old Professer]

Riots followed in his wake like muddy slush behind a snowplow.

[Badray]

"You're right, SP. In fact, the truth about you is known by some here as well."

Excuse me. Are you saying that Siamese Princess is wrong about the facts regarding King?

What is the *truth* about her? Would you mind taking your accusation from the murky depths of slimy innuendo to provable fact? Your insinuation is tasteless and out of place here or anywhere else for that matter.

I don't know why, but I would have expected better of you.

[Proud_texan]

I'm not aware of anything in the constitution that bans citizens from being unjust and unfair. Certainly in the eyes of the law we are to be held equal (and we don't always get that one right either) but I don't know of anything that says that on a one on one basis we have to be "fair". (Gads, I'm sick of that commie agenda crap word).

I'm not defending the conditions, I'm simply asking what provision allows sit-ins in a private business? What you think is unjust and unfair? What I think is unjust and unfair? Heck, I have a list of stuff I think is "unfair" a mile long. Let's do it! Fortunately I understood long ago that life isn't "fair". Just ask the poor citizens of Cuba.

Parenthetically I suspect we all have a group that we treat as second class citizens be it due to baldness, age, weight, looks and so on. We may not even know we do it, but after many decades of watching human nature the founding fathers had it right as usual; you can be equal under the law but flawed humans have to be allowed to be asses; no way to law your way out of that one.

[LauraleeBraswell]

Try the Declaration of Independence!

[LibertarianInExile]

I suppose every black person should have just waited until the KKK was able to Tolerate their presence! You need to shut up. You really make me sick with your ignorance.

I said nothing like you imply. I just said that there are rights that every person had that are now taken away. You want to believe that the civil rights for some people movement was a watershed for everyone. But when the government forced integration in private businesses, some people lost their right to freely associate with who they liked. And the public was polarized, in a way they would not have been had integration been a private decision--as it would have been had people like you been patient and waited for public acceptance of what is right and good, instead of being swayed by the argument that government should do what is right and good, even if it's not constitutional. Your public school textbook response to my post shows what a wonderful job schools are doing of making people who consider themselves conservatives into liberals who will okay unconstitutional government action for "good causes," and you don't even know it.

And you may have been brainwashed to believe that anyone arguing against Brown or the 1964 'right to sue racists and make lawyers money' act is racist, but just because the PC banner flies over your house doesn't mean it's actually true.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

The Reverend Martin Luther King Day.

[LibertarianInExile]

Your reply is a study in illogic.

First off, calling it a ridiculous argument doesn't make it one.

Second, there are studies that demonstrate that racial integration and acceptance was trending positively until federal desegregation catalyzed everyone again. Jackie Robinson played baseball without the government's help. Even before Brown and the Civil Rights act, the Baton Rouge boycott had occurred. The civil rights movement would have proceeded apace without the government action, and likely with less southern white resistance. The decision in Brown polarized public opinion, stiffened white southern resistance and put southern white racial moderates in a politically difficult position.

Third, as to your emotive "why, I won't live in a country that allows public discrimination!" b.s., guess what? You do. Social security discriminates against black men every day. Black men don't live as long, and they don't have much of a chance of collecting. And laws regarding public facilities notwithstanding, go hang out in a NYC or DC public school someday and see how integrated they are. There is plenty of institutionalized racism. It may not be cloaked in legality, but passing laws doesn't solve a damn thing if people aren't ready for the change. People weren't. They probably won't be for another hundred years, because forcing PC viewpoints on people doesn't result in them HAVING PC viewpoints, but silently seething about their own subjugation.

Finally, your statement that "ending discrimination by race was a good thing...period" demonstrates that you are one of these folks who thinks that because it does a "good thing," a law is good. You are foolish if you believe that. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a nightmare that has resulted in a lawyer's bonanza. Every law has unintended consequences. 1964 was a banner year for those. And as to Brown, well, how many people died, and how many federal programs were spawned to support that travesty of anti-federalism? Would it not have been simpler to let the Southerners alone and, as you say, "not live in" those states? I firmly believe that the South would have economically been forced into changing, as its educated people moved North to escape that racism, but I will never know, as people like you preferred to force that change on people who were not ready. Ending racism is an individual decision. Government can't and won't effect that change.

But in response to your wonderful statement that 'ending discrimination by race was a good thing...period,' let me ask you this: knowing that blacks DO face some discrimination on the basis of their skin color, isn't affirmative action a good thing...period...as it helps to remedy that? You are no conservative if you answer yes, and you are not true to your blanket statement if you answer no.

Your non sequitur about libertarians was further indication of your inability to defend your ideas. Consider an AOL or Disney board, where you can "argue" with people who you might have a shot at "logically" dissuading.

[LibertarianInExile]

Oh, you must be a fan of the Klan like I am. /sarcasm

(see her reply to me)

[LibertarianInExile]

As to having no legal means, what do you think the bus boycotts in Montgomery were? Private action is what broke the segregationists' back there, and would have resulted in REAL racial acceptance and integration over the long haul. Instead, federal action polarized the dispute, and turned a lot of Southerners against blacks that might otherwise have been on the fence. The federal government has gone on to create far more racism than it has prevented, no matter the intentions of the drafters of the Civil Rights Act or the judges in Brown.

[LibertarianInExile]

Bump to everything you've said. I don't believe in racism or sexism or even discrimination against gays personally--but I do believe that you should have a right to associate with who you want, and that government can't change folks' feelings about others, wrong or not. And we all know what government action has produced...a bunch of race-baiting hucksters like Sharpton and Jackson.

[rdb3]

I said what I said, and I stand by what I said.

I wasn't even talking about King.

Real men don't whine.

[California Patriot]

I don't object to the sit-ins and protests.

I do object to: King's associations with communists,
his increasingly socialistic beliefs and rhetoric,
and what "civil rights" rather quickly turned into --
black power and overbearing statism.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

What Does a Conservative Do on Martin Luther King Day?

Get up ,Go to work ,Come Home ,Go to bed. !

[PRND21]

What Does a Conservative Do on Martin Luther King Day?

Go to work.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Question: "What Does a Conservative Do on Martin Luther King Day?"

Answer: Go to work.(Someone has to pay for the 'dream'!)

[Badray]

"The federal government has gone on to create far more racism than it has prevented, no matter the intentions of the drafters of the Civil Rights Act or the judges in Brown."

Quinn's First Law -- Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent.