Myths of Martin Luther King

www.lewrockwell.com ^ | January 18, 2003 | Marcus Epstein

[Tailgunner Joe]

There is probably no greater sacred cow in America than Martin Luther King Jr. The slightest criticism of him or even suggesting that he isn’t deserving of a national holiday leads to the usual accusations of racist, fascism, and the rest of the usual left-wing epithets not only from liberals, but also from many ostensible conservatives and libertarians.

This is amazing because during the 50s and 60s, the Right almost unanimously opposed the civil rights movement. Contrary to the claims of many neocons, the opposition was not limited to the John Birch Society and southern conservatives. It was made by politicians like Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, and in the pages of Modern Age, Human Events, National Review, and the Freeman.

Today, the official conservative and libertarian movement portrays King as someone on our side who would be fighting Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton if he were alive. Most all conservative publications and websites have articles around this time of the year praising King and discussing how today’s civil rights leaders are betraying his legacy. Jim Powell’s otherwise excellent The Triumph of Liberty rates King next to Ludwig von Mises and Albert J. Nock as a libertarian hero. Attend any IHS seminar, and you’ll read "A letter from a Birmingham Jail" as a great piece of anti-statist wisdom. The Heritage Foundation regularly has lectures and symposiums honoring his legacy. There are nearly a half dozen neocon and left-libertarian think tanks and legal foundations with names such as "The Center for Equal Opportunity" and the "American Civil Rights Institute" which claim to model themselves after King.

Why is a man once reviled by the Right now celebrated by it as a hero? The answer partly lies in the fact that the mainstream Right has gradually moved to the left since King’s death. The influx of many neoconservative intellectuals, many of whom were involved in the civil rights movement, into the conservative movement also contributes to the King phenomenon. This does not fully explain the picture, because on many issues King was far to the left of even the neoconservatives, and many King admirers even claim to adhere to principles like freedom of association and federalism. The main reason is that they have created a mythical Martin Luther King Jr., that they constructed solely from one line in his "I Have a Dream" speech.

In this article, I will try to dispel the major myths that the conservative movement has about King. I found a good deal of the information for this piece in I May Not Get There With You: The True Martin Luther King by black leftist Michael Eric Dyson. Dyson shows that King supported black power, reparations, affirmative action, and socialism. He believes this made King even more admirable. He also deals frankly with King’s philandering and plagiarism, though he excuses them. If you don’t mind reading his long discussions about gangsta rap and the like, I strongly recommend this book.

Myth #1: King wanted only equal rights, not special privileges and would have opposed affirmative action, quotas, reparations, and the other policies pursued by today’s civil rights leadership.

This is probably the most repeated myth about King. Writing on National Review Online, There Heritage Foundation’s Matthew Spalding wrote a piece entitled "Martin Luther King’s Conservative Mind," where he wrote, "An agenda that advocates quotas, counting by race and set-asides takes us away from King's vision."

The problem with this view is that King openly advocated quotas and racial set-asides. He wrote that the "Negro today is not struggling for some abstract, vague rights, but for concrete improvement in his way of life." When equal opportunity laws failed to achieve this, King looked for other ways. In his book Where Do We Go From Here, he suggested that "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." To do this he expressed support for quotas. In a 1968 Playboy interview, he said, "If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas." King was more than just talk in this regard. Working through his Operation Breadbasket, King threatened boycotts of businesses that did not hire blacks in proportion to their population.

King was even an early proponent of reparations. In his 1964 book, Why We Can’t Wait, he wrote,

No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law.

Predicting that critics would note that many whites were equally disadvantaged, King claimed that his program, which he called the "Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged" would help poor whites as well. This is because once the blacks received reparations, the poor whites would realize that their real enemy was rich whites.

Myth # 2: King was an American patriot, who tried to get Americans to live up to their founding ideals.

In National Review, Roger Clegg wrote that "There may have been a brief moment when there existed something of a national consensus – a shared vision eloquently articulated in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech, with deep roots in the American Creed, distilled in our national motto, E pluribus unum. Most Americans still share it, but by no means all." Many other conservatives have embraced this idea of an American Creed that built upon Jefferson and Lincoln, and was then fulfilled by King and libertarians like Clint Bolick and neocons like Bill Bennett.

Despite his constant invocations of the Declaration of Independence, King did not have much pride in America’s founding. He believed "our nation was born in genocide," and claimed that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were meaningless for blacks because they were written by slave owners.

Myth # 3: King was a Christian activist whose struggle for civil rights is similar to the battles fought by the Christian Right today.

Ralph Reed claims that King’s "indispensable genius" provided "the vision and leadership that renewed and made crystal clear the vital connection between religion and politics." He proudly admitted that the Christian Coalition "adopted many elements of King’s style and tactics." The pro-life group, Operation Rescue, often compared their struggle against abortion to King’s struggle against segregation. In a speech entitled The Conservative Virtues of Dr. Martin Luther King, Bill Bennet described King, as "not primarily a social activist, he was primarily a minister of the Christian faith, whose faith informed and directed his political beliefs."

Both King’s public stands and personal behavior makes the comparison between King and the Religious Right questionable.

FBI surveillance showed that King had dozens of extramarital affairs. Although many of the pertinent records are sealed, several agents who watched observed him engage in many questionable acts including buying prostitutes with SCLC money. Ralph Abernathy, who King called "the best friend I have in the world," substantiated many of these charges in his autobiography, And the Walls Came Tumbling Down. It is true that a man’s private life is mostly his business. However, most conservatives vehemently condemned Jesse Jackson when news of his illegitimate son came out, and claimed he was unfit to be a minister.

King also took stands that most in the Christian Right would disagree with. When asked about the Supreme Court’s decision to ban school prayer, King responded,

I endorse it. I think it was correct. Contrary to what many have said, it sought to outlaw neither prayer nor belief in god. In a pluralistic society such as ours, who is to determine what prayer shall be spoken and by whom? Legally, constitutionally or otherwise, the state certainly has no such right.

While King died before the Roe vs. Wade decision, and, to the best of my knowledge, made no comments on abortion, he was an ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood. He even won their Margaret Sanger Award in 1966 and had his wife give a speech entitled Family Planning – A Special and Urgent Concern which he wrote. In the speech, he did not compare the civil rights movement to the struggle of Christian Conservatives, but he did say "there is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger's early efforts."

Myth # 4: King was an anti-communist.

In another article about Martin Luther King, Roger Clegg of National Review applauds King for speaking out against the "oppression of communism!" To gain the support of many liberal whites, in the early years, King did make a few mild denunciations of communism. He also claimed in a 1965 Playboy that there "are as many Communists in this freedom movement as there are Eskimos in Florida." This was a bald-faced lie. Though King was never a Communist and was always critical of the Soviet Union, he had knowingly surrounded himself with Communists. His closest advisor Stanley Levison was a Communist, as was his assistant Jack O’Dell. Robert and later John F. Kennedy repeatedly warned him to stop associating himself with such subversives, but he never did. He frequently spoke before Communist front groups such as the National Lawyers Guild and Lawyers for Democratic Action. King even attended seminars at The Highlander Folk School, another Communist front, which taught Communist tactics, which he later employed.

King’s sympathy for communism may have contributed to his opposition to the Vietnam War, which he characterized as a racist, imperialistic, and unjust war. King claimed that America "had committed more war crimes than any nation in the world." While he acknowledged the NLF "may not be paragons of virtue," he never criticized them. However, he was rather harsh on Diem and the South. He denied that the NLF was communist, and believed that Ho Chi Minh should have been the legitimate ruler of Vietnam. As a committed globalist, he believed that "our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation. This means we must develop a world perspective."

Many of King’s conservative admirers have no problem calling anyone who questions American foreign policy a "fifth columnist." While I personally agree with King on some of his stands on Vietnam, it is hypocritical for those who are still trying to get Jane Fonda tried for sedition to applaud King.

Myth # 5: King supported the free market.

OK, you don’t hear this too often, but it happens. For example, Father Robert A. Sirico delivered a paper to the Acton Institute entitled Civil Rights and Social Cooperation. In it, he wrote,

A freer economy would take us closer to the ideals of the pioneers in this country's civil rights movement. Martin Luther King, Jr. recognized this when he wrote: "With the growth of industry the folkways of white supremacy will gradually pass away," and he predicted that such growth would "Increase the purchasing power of the Negro [which in turn] will result in improved medical care, greater educational opportunities, and more adequate housing. Each of these developments will result in a further weakening of segregation."

King of course was a great opponent of the free economy. In a speech in front of his staff in 1966 he said,

You can’t talk about solving the economic problem of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending the slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with captains of industry… Now this means that we are treading in difficult water, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong…with capitalism… There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism.

King called for "totally restructuring the system" in a way that was not capitalist or "the antithesis of communist." For more information on King’s economic views, see Lew Rockwell’s The Economics of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Myth # 6: King was a conservative.

As all the previous myths show, King’s views were hardly conservative. If this was not enough, it is worth noting what King said about the two most prominent postwar American conservative politicians, Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater.

King accused Barry Goldwater of "Hitlerism." He believed that Goldwater advocated a "narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism, and a trigger-happy attitude." On domestic issues he felt that "Mr. Goldwater represented an unrealistic conservatism that was totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century." King said that Goldwater’s positions on civil rights were "morally indefensible and socially suicidal."

King said of Reagan, "When a Hollywood performer, lacking distinction even as an actor, can become a leading war hawk candidate for the presidency, only the irrationalities induced by war psychosis can explain such a turn of events."

Despite King’s harsh criticisms of those men, both supported the King holiday. Goldwater even fought to keep King’s FBI files, which contained information about his adulterous sex life and Communist connections, sealed.

Myth # 7: King wasn’t a plagiarist.

OK, even most of the neocons won’t deny this, but it is still worth bringing up, because they all ignore it. King started plagiarizing as an undergraduate. When Boston University founded a commission to look into it, they found that that 45 percent of the first part and 21 percent of the second part of his dissertation was stolen, but they insisted that "no thought should be given to revocation of Dr. King’s doctoral degree." In addition to his dissertation many of his major speeches, such as "I Have a Dream," were plagiarized, as were many of his books and writings. For more information on King’s plagiarism, The Martin Luther King Plagiarism Page and Theodore Pappas’ Plagiarism and the Culture War are excellent resources.

When faced with these facts, most of King’s conservative and libertarian fans either say they weren’t part of his main philosophy, or usually they simply ignore them. Slightly before the King Holiday was signed into law, Governor Meldrim Thompson of New Hampshire wrote a letter to Ronald Reagan expressing concerns about King’s morality and Communist connections. Ronald Reagan responded, "I have the reservations you have, but here the perception of too many people is based on an image, not reality. Indeed, to them the perception is reality."

Far too many on the Right are worshipping that perception. Rather than face the truth about King’s views, they create a man based upon a few lines about judging men "by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin" – something we are not supposed to do in his case, of course – while ignoring everything else he said and did. If King is truly an admirable figure, they are doing his legacy a disservice by using his name to promote an agenda he clearly would not have supported.

[TaZ]

"Do you support state-imposed integration? (i.e. bussing?)"

After being reared in an almost entirely caucasian Southern Kalifornia, my family moved for a few years to the midwest in the mid-70s.

The high school I attended was the subject of forced bussinf of blacks into a white community, after the blacks had twice burnt to the ground high schools constructed in the black community.

The result was daily violence, drug trafficking and yearly riots during the last month of the school year.

Having no exposure to black culture, I was horrified to my initial introduction to it.

I am not surprised that although blacks only make up about 10% of the Amerikan populace, they constitute 30-40% of the prison population.

[TaZ]

"So when are you leaving?"

Are you telling me to leave?

I'm sorry, but I'm not ready to depart from the country that my family has lived in for over 250 years.

I wonder if they would have participated in every major US war since the rebellion against English tyranny if they knew it would become the farce it is today...

IMHO, we were better off under the crown of England.

[Holden Magroin]

Right on. In addition to playing the race card (calling the philosophy of Barry Goldwater, whose father was Jewish, "Hitlerism") and being a dupe for North Vietnamese propaganda, King was a major philanderer - hardly a person who should be honored with a federal holiday. Even Mr. RINO himself, John McCain, voted against the creation of a King holiday.

It's about time conservatives quit looking for approval from so-called civil rights activists by lauding King; groups like the NAACP don't even like him. While King seemed to advocate integration, the race-hustling poverty pimps want black college students to have separate-but-equal graduation ceremonies, dorms, and studies departments. Groups like the NAACP also insist on calling blacks "African-Americans" in order to stress that they're "Africans" first and Americans second. People like Bill Bennett and Jack Kemp need to pull their heads out of their asses and realize that the race hustlers don't share their vision of a colorblind America.

Also, conservatives right here at Free Republic need to quit boasting of how Republicans helped pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forced private "public" accomodations like hotels and restaurants to serve minorities. Forcing one group of people to associate with another is tyrannical and un-American.

[TaZ]

"race-hustling poverty pimps"

Classic take on these circus clowns...I have spoken in depth with Al "sharpy" Sharpton, and he is one of the biggest buffoons I have ever met.

These "race-hustling poverty pimps" only seek to enrich themselves by pandering to the malcontents.

[rdb3]

Are you telling me to leave?

Hardly. It was a question, not a demand. Since you are dismayed and loathesome of this nation and her citizens, it stands to reason that you might want to leave. Therefore, I asked the question.

I wonder if they would have participated in every major US war since the rebellion against English tyranny if they knew it would become the farce it is today...

Some can argue that it was a "farce" then.

IMHO, we were better off under the crown of England.

Now that was funny!

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[Joe Hadenuf]

It's about time conservatives quit looking for approval from so-called civil rights activists by lauding King

Think so? Be looking for President Bush to come out to honor and pay respect for King on Monday....

[rdb3]

Forcing one group of people to associate with another is tyrannical and un-American.

And the forced separation of people is American? Makes you wonder why it came to this, doesn't it?

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[rdb3]

I am not surprised that although blacks only make up about 10% of the Amerikan populace, they constitute 30-40% of the prison population.

Yo, Mike! We have a live one here.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[per loin]

For an insight into the manufacturing of MLK out of Michael King (his real name) read Ellison's "The Invisible Man"

[TaZ]

"Hardly. It was a question, not a demand. Since you are dismayed and loathesome of this nation and her citizens, it stands to reason that you might want to leave. Therefore, I asked the question."

Actually, I'm hoping and waiting for a new "Age of Reason".

What is really funny is that I'm listening to an interview with Mel Gibson's father right now and he said he moved his family from NY State to Australia in an attempt to escape the NWO and the corrupt church in Amerika.

According to Mr. Gibson, both he and Mel have found the same trash in Government around the world (feces always floats to the top is what he said..lol) and came back to the USA with the hope of restoring the once great Republic.

"Aye, fight and you may die, run and you'll live. At least a while. And dying in your beds many years from now, would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, just one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom?!"

[rdb3]

rdb3, do you have a problem with the english [sic] language?

Absolutely not, and you are mistaken. Those two statements are really one and the same given our history.

If it is un-American to force people who do not wish to be with another to do so, then it is also un-American to force people to separate. See? Two sides of the same coin. And our history shows us that forced separation was not only accepted, but called "American."

NOTE: I did not say nor infer that I agree with forced separation or co-mingling. Freedom of association is a right, not a priviledge.

When I read the word "statist," I know I'm dealing with a libertarian. Besides, what are you dealing with me for anyway? I have that skin color of that 30-40% you spoke so highly of previously. You'd think that you'd have absolutely nothing to do with me.

Nothing further. Carry on.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[rdb3]

...and came back to the USA with the hope of restoring the once great Republic.

When was it "great?"

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[marron]

A few years ago, these guys would have been Democrats. A Republican in a town full of these guys would have to learn to keep a very low profile.

I can remember the old days, (I was young, but I remember). To speak ill of the good-old-boy establishment was guaranteed to get these guys up in your face. Likewise to be polite to people you weren't supposed to be polite to.

To openly declare your views, as a Republican, took a lot of raw, physical, courage. A Republican had to have some courage, but most probably learned to mute his views and blend in. A Republican who didn't watch his mouth would get a visit from the boys, who would remind him how things worked. A Black man with a smart mouth was guaranteed a visit from the boys.

As I say, I was young, but I had big eyes and big ears. I knew which side I was on.

I remember, years later, when King began to lead his marches. Of course, no one knew about his personal life, nor did they care. The people who hated him, did not hate him because he cheated on his wife, because that was not known. They hated him because he walked where they told him not to walk. They hated him because he demanded to be treated as a citizen, full and equal.

I of course remember the attacks on his people, the bombings that killed the little girls, the people that were beaten. All of the good people would say, of course thats terrible, but... Always a "but". Racism is terrible but... The Klan is terrible but... the killings are terrible but...

All of that ended the day King was shot dead. All of the equivocation, all of the temporizing, all of the "buts" were over. It is sad, and tragic, but it took his killing for people to fully confront what they were doing, and to finally leave it behind.

You may or may not agree, but I count 1968 as the year racism in America died. Some of the people in this thread are trying to make me think it still lives, but I know better. I saw it die. Since 1968 no one I know could ever say the kinds of things that were commonly said prior. They could not let themselves feel the kinds of things they commonly felt prior to 1968.

So, they can tell me he was whatever he was, and they may even be right, so far as it goes. But I saw what life in some places looked like before he stood up, and I saw what life was like in those same places, among those same people, after he was killed. Transformed.

Not many of us will ever make that kind of difference with our lives. Many of us will never make the errors he made, philosophically, or morally. But he stood up, and most others didn't.

It is important to recognize that most of the people who stood by, and did nothing, would have considered themselves Christians. The guys who committed the attacks most certainly were not, of course, but they could blend and find support from the good people of the community who, while they didn't approve, didn't speak up either. It is very important to recognize this. These people placed "culture", and community loyalty, above religion.

It is important to recognize that these people were the good, and decent, citizens. Because the worst evils occur when good people go off the track. We can all protect ourselves from evil people, because they are easy to recognize. Its the good people, the ones who put loyalty over principle, who make real evil possible.

[TaZ]

"When I read the word "statist," I know I'm dealing with a libertarian. Besides, what are you dealing with me for anyway? I have that skin color of that 30-40% you spoke so highly of previously. You'd think that you'd have absolutely nothing to do with me."

Until 1992, I was a republican volunteer/organizer in the Kalifornia Republican party...I have never voted or identified myself as a "libertarian".

Moreover, I judge individuals on their attitude and actions, not their skin color. My wife is of Mexican heritage and she is a beautiful, intelligent, loving person who is honest to a fault.

I do however find the so-called "African American" culture predominantly emotive, prone to violent behavior and racist attitudes...the 30-40% incarceration numbers for your culture is indicative of that...facts speak louder than words.

Maybe if "African Americans" sought to teach their children to co-exist and integrate with society, they wouldn't in large numbers become criminals.

In conclusion, it is my hope that all races of citizens in the US would ban together to protect each other's God-given rights.

The Founding Fathers made several mistakes when they established the Republic, which was BTW the greatest government instituted in the annals of human history, and one the biggest mistakes was allowing forcefully enslaved peoples to be brought to our shores as commerce.

[Intolerant in NJ]

... Al "sharpy" Sharpton...those who glorify King and criticize his "detractors" as having been derelict in their involvement in civil rights seem to deny that there were in fact many others working in their own ways to bring about racial justice. Probably the most effective used governmental channels, such as Truman and Eisenhower , and even under the hated Nixon the number of black children attending all black school in the south dropped from 68% in 1968 to 8% in 1972. King created a mass movement which eventually came to symbolize the "civil rights movement", but it became a movement in search of goals and leaders when most of the legal impediments to equal rights were undone, and given the kinds of people he had involved in its leadership (Stanley Levison, a financier for the communist party, for instance), it is probably not surprising that philosophically what passes for the movement today tends toward demands for preferences and entitlements, and towards flamboyant publicity seekers such as Sharpton. IMO the real legacy of King is a black populace which votes 90% for the 'rats, who advocate dramatic, facile solutions such as King seemed to promise, rather than 'pubs, who take a more deliberate, substantial approach.....