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.

[CyberCowboy777]

I agree that there were those that would use the debates to further a racist agenda.

But too many on the Right are given the label and so the debate is tainted. Really the entirety of the Right is considered disqualified because the actions or thoughts of a few.

In reality many democrats were involved in the same agenda or worse and yet most do not disqualify them from the debate.

This is a case of forced perception.

[CyberCowboy777]

I do not know anything of the plagiaries.

I do know that I question the integrity of the man as I do of JFK.

[Bogolyubski]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but (as mentioned in the article), King's longtime freind and associate told of the long, unending, unrepentant adulteries in the book "And the Walls Came Tumbling Down." And, yes, it's also quite accurate that King supported the racial preferences that were ultimately given the Orwellian label of "Affirmative Action" starting around 1965.

He also effectively renounced adherence to any shred of actual Christianity (which he labeled as "fundamentalism") in favor of the leftist "social gospel." In genuine Christianity, he would have been forced to renounce any position of spiritual authority in light of his utterly depraved lifestyle (repeated group sex with prostitutes). King is nothing but a pot-metal god manufactured by the leftist media, and we all are now expected to worship at the altar.

[Cowboy Bob]

In addition to his dissertation many of his major speeches, such as "I Have a Dream," were plagiarized,...

If this is true, how could the family hold copyrights on them?

[Restorer]

At the time, the vast majority of the racist "conservatives," as opposed to the just not interested conservatives, were Democrats. Somehow the Democrats have managed to make most Americans believe George Wallace and Bull Connor were Republicans.

Very odd.

I believe an extremely good case could have been made for a truly conservative activist civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. It's a truly great tragedy that the case wasn't made, allowing conservatism to be tarred with the racist brush among the ignoranti.

[RLK]

Why is a man once reviled by the Right now celebrated by it as a hero?

-------------------------------

Because the lies, distortions, and purposefull omissions created to transform King into a saint have grown so powerful that few people have the courage to confront them. And because few people now have enough respect for themselves and the constitution to either recognize or care about the infringements upon personal choice or individual freedom that the civil rights movement imposed.

[marron]

The times were complicated.

That the old Jim Crow South was immoral should be plain on the face of it. But if you were a "conservative" from the South, you probably did not see it at the time, or if you saw it, you probably didn't see a solution.

This is where terms such as "conservative" and "rightist" get confusing. Jim Crow was a Democratic Party institution. The oppression of Black citizens can be reasonably laid directly at the feet of Democrats, who resisted extending full citizenship rights to Blacks for most of a century following the end of Reconstruction. If you consider that the Democrats were also the Slavery party in the south, and the slavery appeasement party in the North, their history of racial oppression goes back considerably further.

We use "conservative" typically to refer to classic liberalism, whigism, which is to say respect for individual liberty and limited government. The article refers to the proponents of Jim Crow as "conservatives" and "Rightists", but this is correct only if by conservative you mean "traditionalist" rather than "classic liberal". And rightist is correct if what you mean is nationalist.

It is this confusion of terms that allows Democrats to avoid responsibility for 150 years of racialist oppression, while ignoring that Republicans fought for color-blind citizenship all throughout the bad old days, and continue to fight for it into the present day.

The "states rights" issue also complicates the discussion. Republicans believe in the 9th and 10th ammendments, which means that they certainly believe in "states rights". Power is intended to be divided between different levels, and different departments, as a bulwark against abuse by any one institution. If the feds are out of control, you have state and local law to provide a check on their power. Likewise, if local authorities are out of control, there are state and federal authorities that can be called on to intervene.

But for Democrats, "States Rights" was perverted into a justification for the oppression of their black citizens.

Republicans always opposed this perverted version of "states rights". And it is this perversion that now makes it difficult to have a reasoned discussion of the real, constitutional, issues. Any discussion of the 9th and 10th ammendments recalls the old Democrat position, and almost ends the discussion before it starts. Again, its a propaganda ploy, intended to lay Democrat crimes at Republican feet. We must not sit still for it.

Finally, most civil rights legislation has been passed by the Republicans, historically, sometimes with and sometimes without Democrat support. Republicans were certainly uneasy with certain provisions of the 1965 law, on constitutional grounds, and I well remember the concerns and the discussions. The party was torn between the need to be faithful to the constitution, and the desire to put a quick end to Jim Crow.

It is sad and sick to see the Democratic party now claiming credit for a fight that they were on the wrong side of for a century, back when to be a Republican in a southern town was to be a very lonely man.

As for Martin Luther King, to prove that he was a flawed man is to prove nothing. Jim Crow was immoral. To fight it was dangerous and lonely, and I have nothing but respect for anyone who got out of their easy chairs and into the fight. We all believe that, if it came right down to it, we would be willing to put our lives on the line for freedom. But it did come down to it, and it was a flawed preacher, and his flawed followers, who stood up. For all of his flaws, he is the bigger man than his detractors, who were content to see oppression continue into yet another generation.

His views on some issues insured that he would never be a Republican. But his opposition to Jim Crow put him squarely in line with the Republican party principles, and squarely against the institutional Democrat party . We should not now let the Democrats tell our history. They have a lot to answer for. Lets let them answer for it.

[rdb3]

Thanx for the ping, Ben.

Great posts, Restorer.

Now, I have a question. Why is it that no one will ask the most obvious question when it comes down to King and the Civil Rights Movement? That question is simply this:

Why was someone like King needed in the first place?

That's the question no one seems to want to ask, ponder, or answer.

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

[Restorer]

What you said. Better than I could.

[joesnuffy]

Seditious material...even if it is the truth

[rdb3]

You get it, marron. You truly do.

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

[secretagent]

Thanks marron.

[rdb3]

And because few people now have enough respect for themselves and the constitution [sic] to either recognize or care about the infringements upon personal choice or individual freedom that the civil rights movement [sic] imposed.

Okay, RLK. Now tell me, why did anything have to be done for "civil rights" that would lead to such an extent as this?

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

[RLK]

I am disinterested in being diverted from the primary issue. In the name if civil rights we have been bullied into surrendering rights no people who want to remain free should ever surrender. The first principle of a free society is that social and economic interactions occur on the basis of mutual agreement between participating parties. Any violation of that is a crime against freedom and humanity. The civil rights movement forced demands upon other people and hence violated that prime principle. I find my life and the lives of others subject to review and enforced social servitude as a result of the King legacy. I'm not a toy for others to play with or command.

[Pelham]

Good Question considering King died in 1968 and Reagan was only in his first term of being the Governor of California

King would easily have known of Reagan's politics. Reagan was a hardly a novice in conservative politics in 1968. He became a national political figure as early as 1964 from "the speech" he gave in support of Goldwater.

[rdb3]

I am disinterested in being diverted from the primary issue.

The "primary issue" here is King and what led up to his ascention in our history. Therefore, one cannot be intellectually honest while ignoring the situation(s) that made people like King not only come forward, but necessary.

In the name if civil rights we have been bullied into surrendering rights no people who want to remain free should ever surrender.

"Bullied." That's an interesting choice of words. "Surrendering rights." There's another. Also, when was this nation ever truly "free?" I'll await your response.

The first principle of a free society is that social and economic interactions occur on the basis of mutual agreement between participating parties. Any violation of that is a crime against freedom and humanity.

This begs the question of your stance on anti-miscegenation laws prior to 1964. Care to share them? And, again, when was this nation ever truly "free?"

The civil rights movement forced demands upon other people and hence violated that prime principle.

"Forced demands." Another interesting choice of words.

I find my life and the lives of others subject to review and enforced social servitude as a result of the King legacy.

I can't resist. You find your life being "subject to review and enforced social servitude?" Are you realizing what you are saying?

I'm not a toy for others to play with or command.

I'm glad that you are not a "toy." And you should not be one, either.

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

[rdb3]

...as usual, emotions not intellect lead the Amerikan sheeple.

Excuse me, but, spelling America and/or American with a "k" makes it difficult to take you seriously.

I have more respect for my nation than that. And if you love this land, so should you have that respect.

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

[TaZ]

"Excuse me, but, spelling America and/or American with a "k" makes it difficult to take you seriously.

I have more respect for my nation than that. And if you love this land, so should you have that respect."

I have no respect for a populace that through its ignorance, apathy or scheming has subverted the original intent of the Founding Fathers into a statist run socialist tyranny.

[rdb3]

I have no respect for a populace that through its ignorance, apathy or scheming has subverted the original intent of the Founding Fathers into a statist run socialist tyranny.

I see.

So when are you leaving?

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