Martin Luther King: How he Changed Politics in America - Thesis Example

?MARTIN LUTHER KING: HOW HE CHANGED POLITICS IN AMERICA I. INTRODUCTION The 1960s were the King’s years; he changed the United s. Americans found a new national icon, whom President George W. Bush called a “second founder . . . who trusted fellow Americans to join [him] in doing the right thing.” Only John F. Kennedy could be compared to King in the matter of words and images, the most identifiable characteristic of the era. Words spoken by King have become quotes in the elementary and secondary schools and various lectures. Surveys made in 2004-2005 have revealed that King was the only most famous of the “famous Americans” not president. In the Atlantic poll organized in 2006, King was ranked on the eighth number out of one hundred “most influential figures in American history.” Such names as John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy were missing from the top twenty list of the 1960s; such was the height of King’s popularity (Kazin 2009, 983). II. BODY The historical ranking accorded to King is linked to the rise and fate of the civil rights movement. He held the unchallenged position for the civil rights struggle, at least in the popular memory. It was a “classical” period for the movement, starting from the 1954 Brown case to the demonstrations in Montgomery, Birmingham, and Selma, completing the circle with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. A historic wrong was corrected, as in the review of Branch’s second volume, Alan Wolfe wrote, “To recount the life and times of Martin Luther King, Jr. is to tell the story of how, more than 50 years after the century began, America lastly became a modern society” (Kazin 2009, 984). Backlash to the civil rights struggle appeared in different social conservative movements, showing racial antipathy packaged together with other traits such as valuing “traditional” communities and an ethical right of those possessing homes and business given more importance over the movement run by King. This backlash was started by “middle Americans” over the defeat of liberal “elite” over communism in Vietnam and poverty at home. Sociologist Jonathan Rieder’s comments on the backlash are worth noting: “Backlash was a disorderly affair that contained democratic, populist, genteel, conspiratorial, racist, humanistic, pragmatic, and meritocratic impulses. Simply put, the middle was too diverse, the grievances it suffered too varied, to be captured in a single category” (Kazin 2009, 984). Whites sought such ways to absorb the shock of integration as relocating to all-white areas, which they guarded on the pretext of tax laws, personal facilities, and personal rights over racist rhetoric. The movement although did “change the face” of the nation but not as desired (Kazin 2009, 986). King’s civil rights movement refined democracy. It aroused and inspired forceful reaction among populations in millions from all walks of life including white women, Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, gay men and lesbians, disabled people, and others who swore their right in public domain and their claim to a distinct proud identity. The 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was a leading achievement of the movement run by King, provided them the right to economic opportunity. People at large recognized the fact that only freedom was not enough, liberty and justice was equally crucial for full citizenship. King wanted a democratic socialist United States where common people no more needed to sacrifice their needs to provide luxuries to the elite classes. T o King, it was both against the spirit of justice and Christianity (Kazin 2009, 986). Politics being the under-current of the civil rights struggle, King entered into alliances with democratic socialist activists the like of Bayard Rustin, A. Philip Randolph, and Michael Harrington, and supported their attempts at making of a long term alliance between black insurgents and the AFL-CIO after rising to the top in the civil rights movement. He advocated such policies that would help working class from all races: “a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures” (Kazin 2009, 986). King argued that pursuing such a policy could only present an opportunity to form alliance with poor whites who were puzzled by supporting those whites out of prejudice who were sidetracking their own interests. King knew that job guarantee and income could change the US into well-behaved society (Kazin 2009, 986). At the same time, following on the lines of a true Gandhian, King also backed anti-imperialist movements in poor countries and presented to the black people in the US as models. He was against interference abroad, which he had made very clear quite before his famous 1967 speech at the stake of spoiling relationships with President Johnson but used his pragmatism skillfully. His dream of a new America was nearer to the vision of Eugene Debs than to the racially liberal version of Cold War liberalism (Kazin 2009, 986). During his time King presented to the outside world the most ethical look of the American left in both speech and policy. He related himself to, as per Jackson, “an ongoing black freedom struggle which challenged racial and class inequalities in the economy and the New Deal state as much as it pursued civic equality and political citizenship” (Kazin 2009, 986). King voiced that challenge in ethical terms that included republican, contractual, and biblical themes, which his audiences loved to listen. He elaborated this in his Lincoln Memorial address of August 28, 1963 by mentioning the promise of Emancipation Proclamation signed a century before. He supported the inter-racial coalition and requested the blacks not to lose confidence and quoted lines from Amos 5, Isaiah 40, and the song of “America.” It was the political maneuvering presented forcefully that compelled most white Americans to honor his mission after his death (Kazin 2009, 986). Economic and employment conditions were not too good for middle class white Americans in the 1960s to support the mixed neighborhoods, increased taxes, as they did not have guts of showing class solidarity with the blacks but when King changed the focus of the movement to economic justice for “poor people” but a small white population belonging to labor class found a sense of belongingness. Republic politicians got leverages from this situation by promoting the expectations of “middle Americans” and won around fifty seats in the House of Representatives in the midterm election of 1966 because the movement for open housing led by King had to face severe resistance from White Chicagoans. A good number of new GOP lawmakers represented the North, which weakened the social-democratic beat of the Great Society (Kazin 2009, 986). King was a leading radical democrat who initiated a new period of reform and also aroused a strong counter-reformation. King got success in rendering some types of injustice illegal before law and the public. He believed in refining democracy by going against the practice of racial reservations and “punitive” taxes, thus electing such politicians the like of Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich who fought for the cause of “working families” in opposition to liberal “special interests.” Such opposing element of the politics of the 1960s changed the outlook of the Americans towards politics and culture (Kazin 2009, 986). King, once proclaimed threat to the nation, became synonym with racial justice. The radical attitude in King demands analysis, which happened in the later years of King’s life by becoming a radical from a liberal reformer who wanted “a reconstruction of the entire society.” His radicalism presented a challenge, as according to Dyson, King was used as “a convenient political football by conservatives and liberals who attempt to ultimately undermine his most radical threat to the status quo.” King would never have reposed faith in becoming a part of the “triumphalism and jingoism” particularly related to the US “victory” in economic and foreign policy. He would have reacted differently, see this remark of King from a 1967 speech: “When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.” King’s radical stance provoked the people to “move beyond the prophesying of a smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent” (Jensen 2001, 5). King changed the lives of millions of his African-American countrymen. He was the most prominent civil rights leader of 20th century. The three places where the memories of King’s life could be refreshed are the King Birth Home where he spent first 12 years of his life, in Ebenezer Baptist Church, where he was baptized and became co-pastor, and the King Center, where the crypts of MLK and Coretta Scott King lie side by side, above a reflecting pool (Barone 2010, 1). The famous speech “I Have a Dream” of Martin Luther King has been well remarked by Edwin Black: “The speech is fixed now in the history of a people.” It has transformed the whole nation feeling one with the thoughts of Martin Luther King; no more it is an ordinary text although its updated legal status is disputed. The element of divinity came to be associated with the famous speech, as Coretta Scott King opined that he was “connected to a higher power” (King). Whether it is true or not could be an issue of argument but the speech has become synonymous with the civil rights movement and brings alive the gathered public memory of the 1963 March on Washington for employment and equal status and the King himself (Duffy & Besel 2010, 184). The significance of the King’s speech “I Have a Dream” was not always the same as it is today, labeled as one of the most important speeches of the twentieth century. The momentary reactions on the speech were different; some appreciated it very much while others sidelined it without assigning any logic. The iconic status to the King’s speech was awarded to it afterwards through media distribution and its cultural glorification although there were echoes of the legendary aura encompassing it. After the assassination of King, the speech was compared with that of Lincoln’s height with the media appreciation of the role played by King in the civil rights movement. King’s speech, “I Have a Dream” was suitable to the demand of the occasion in the history of the civil rights movement (Duffy & Besel 2010, 185). King was one of the ten civil rights orators who delivered speeches. The speech of King was the most arousing but its impact on the television viewers was not that impressive as there were more than one element to be observed, the King, his speech, reaction of the people listening and random remarks to Lincoln. The remarks of television critic Kay Gardella of the New York Daily Times who agreed to the popularity of King’s speech but gave its credit to the visual images created by the television cameras: “Most effective and meaningful,” she said, “were the cutaways to Lincoln’s statue” Duffy & Besel 2010, 186). Magic in King’s speech was found by the television media people and viewers, coming from the stone statue of the Great Emancipator, multiplying the total effect created from the musical words from King’s mellifluent voice, and determination in King’s countenance. The leading newspaper critics like E.W. Kenworthy could easily find a symbolic connection between Lincoln and King, as the front page of The Times penned down the review: “It was Dr. King—who had suffered perhaps most of all—who ignited the crowd with words that might have been written by the sad brooding man enshrined within” (Duffy & Besel 2010, 187). James Reston, on the same New York Times front page, remarked that King “touched the vast audience. Until then the pilgrimage was merely a great spectacle.” The Time Magazine article about the rally clearly understood the importance of King’s speech: “King’s particular magic had enslaved his audience,” Time stated on the written part of King’s speech, while specifically appreciating the extemporized portion with which the speech was finished as “catching, dramatic, inspirational” (Duffy & Besel 2010, 188). The recognition to the speech met only after his martyrdom. People started repeating his actions and works. Pulitzer Prize winning historian David Garrow confirmed this to King’s biographer Drew Hansen that the speech was ignored until King’s assassination. Time awarded King its Man of the Year in 1964 and the Noble Peace Prize also was awarded the same year before his assassination, media had no reason to before that to memorialize King’s biography or his historical significance (Duffy & Besel 2010, 190). The oneness of King and his pronounced “dream” could not be sidetracked as millions were mesmerized by it; it was bound to have the repercussions as Motown Records reissued an individual recording of the “Dream” speech. Bestowing praises on King in 1968, Time named the final extempore part of King’s speech “transcendent”, as it was a height of oratory. Corretta King evoked audiences to “join us in fulfilling his dream” while New York Times praised the “fallen martyr” by analyzing his “dream” and in another article declared that King’s speech at the Lincoln Memorial was “the high point of Dr. King’s war for civil rights.” King himself carried on his distinguishing with “the dream” by quoting it into his later speeches (Duffy & Besel 2010, 191). The impact of King’s speech on the minds of his followers was not anticipated by anybody, not even by King himself. He made 350 speeches and sermons in 1963 with almost similar rhetoric but the impact was never that great as it had been from the “dream” speech. There is no doubt over the powerful impact the speech had on the minds of people but contextual factors such as live telecast of the speech, King’s assassination, and declaration of national holiday, all these helped in making “I Have a Dream” a symbol of King’s life, which represented the civil rights movement. Media captured the speech and the event for people to recall. The written content of the speech read for political mission got transformed into a symbolic tale that provided a heroic tune to the unrealized aspirations (Duffy & Besel 2010, 191). The journey of Dr. King’s political maturity starts from the abridged meaning of his teachings. Commenting on contemporary media usage of his messages and memorializing, Dyson has questioned the government attempts that ‘reveal a truncated understanding of King’s meaning and value to American democracy.’ On King’s contribution in the beginning years of the civil rights movement, Alridge argues that King’s early years involvement in the civil right s movement was ‘heroic, one-dimensional, and neatly packaged master narrative’; it lacks in providing the actual, difficult, and thorough knowledge on King’s life and actions (Inwood 2009, 90-92). In the initial years King concentrated on the experiences of African-Americans in the South to restore the faith in the US democratic system. It is the leading example of how a leader can leverage from the current democratic mechanism in the United States to impress social transformation. His most noteworthy message in this regard was delivered on 28 August 1963 during the ‘March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom’ to a congregation of 250,000 people landed on Washington, DC to voice against discriminatory conditions in the US South wherein King made his ‘I have a Dream’ speech. Before announcing his dream, King stated: We’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American would fall heir … It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note in so far as her colored citizens are concerned (Inwood 2009, 90). King further argued that America has not fulfilled the promises made in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. He alerted the government that the African-American experience was an opportunity to save the United States and the US society could prove to the world through the African-American experience about the ‘great vaults of opportunity of this nation.’ King’s speech was a glimpse of the American tradition in political thinking generally called liberalism firmly grounded in individualism and principles of universal equality. Racial discrimination could be totally eliminated through current political and economic institutions and the foundation of he US nation was based on the principles of justice and equality. America could salvage by doing justice to Black and the only alternative for promoting both American democracy and Black social justice was to lastly salvage the promise of America (Inwood 2009, 90). With the widening horizon of King’s intellectuality he touched upon social justice issues such as Vietnam War and poverty. In stead of focusing only on the structure of US economy, King raised concern for total change in the US political set up. In the last years of his life, King felt harassed at the slow pace of racial change. It was the most transforming part of King’s life, as he was sure that only a ‘revolution of values’ could bring about that transformation through redistribution of wealth and prerogative. King writes in his book ‘where do we go from here: chaos or community?’ King wrote: For the good of America, it is necessary to refute the idea that the dominant ideology of our country, even today, is freedom and equality while racism is just an occasional departure from the norm on the part of a few extremists … [the dominant ideology] is racism (Inwood 2009, 91). King expected the white counter-reaction to civil rights struggle in the 1970s and 1980s. Expanding his range to the northern areas in the US, King felt how deeply rooted was racism in American society. Whites were welcoming to his messages only so far they were not in clash with their benefits. King found the seeds of inequality within the Constitution itself. While addressing the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in 1967 he noted: ‘When the Constitution was written, a strange formula to determine taxes and representation declared that the Negro was sixty percent of a person.’ This remark points towards a change in King’s earlier speech in Lincoln Memorial. He could identify deep structural and legal hurdles to African-Americans racial non-discrimination, as he stated: [The] whole structure [of the United States] must be changed. A nation that will keep a whole people in slavery for 244 years will ‘thingify’ them—make them things. Therefore they will exploit them and poor people generally, economically. And a nation that will exploit them economically will have foreign investments and everything else, and will have to use its military might to protect them. All of these problems are tied together. What I am saying today is that we must go from this convention and say ‘America, you must be born again!’ (Inwood 2009, 91) King related racism in US society with social design of race and its nearness to the nation state. He found that exploitation on the basis of race was written into the US Constitution and seats were distributed in the US House of Representatives through an organizing principle. Such racial practices were closely linked to economic exploitation, the increasing danger of militarism, and US role in Vietnam. He challenged the ethical right of the government and its claim of legitimacy and right to govern. With the progression in King’s thinking, he was loosing hope that racial discrimination would come to an end. This change in King’s perception was identified by the learners of African-American political outlook as ‘disillusioned liberalism’ (Inwood 2009, 92). King expressed his disillusionment very forcefully over the slow pace of racial progress during the ‘Christmas Sermon’ on 24 December 1967 at a gathering in Ebenezer Baptist Church: ‘In 1963, on a sweltering August afternoon, we stood in Washington, D.C. and talked to the nation about many things … I tried to talk to the nation about a dream I had, and I must confess to you today that not long after talking about the dream I started seeing it turn into a nightmare.’ (Inwood 2009, 92). The reason of this change in King’s outlook came from his disillusionment over increasing death toll of civil rights workers and the focus of President Johnson towards Vietnam War at the cost of not showing regard to the civil rights struggle. Now, he had fathomed the deeply entrenched behavior of the whites in racism and knew that a lot more effort and hard work needed to be put in to achieve justice by sacrificing for the cause of racial equality (Inwood 2009, 92). How Politics affected the NAACP NAACP has been in news for not pursuing the cherished goals of crusading against racism. It has been a painful experience for its well wishers to see that direction of its crusade have changed. The strength of the organization has reduced to half of what it was 30 years before. NAACP has been becoming friendly with aggressive powers with the like of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan (Sowell 1994, 1). NACCP has been a voice for human rights, fighting against intolerance at such times when bombings and lynchings were prevalent to suppress the voice of human rights. NAACP showed determination in fighting but people like Benjamin Chavis have been hustling the image of NAACP by shaking hands with such elements who are enemies of humanity. One can see a tradition in this as history has seen movements turning haywire after achieving monumental success, as it happened in China and Sicily where tongs and mafia showed their true color later OR is it that NAACP is at the receiving ends of getting diminishing returns, as it happens in economic law of diminishing returns (Sowell 1994, 1). Priorities in any organization or for that matter in NAACP have been changing with the times. A time has reached when all leading demands have been met, now what? Should the organization go to oblivion? NAACP was previously renowned for waging wars at political and legal platforms. It was just like getting specialization in a particular field, which has not been in demand any more so it has become a handicap to NAACP like any business, religious or civil rights organization having no clue what to do. So other things have crept into the body politic of NAACP. Such alliances would encourage only a backlash of white extremism (Sowell 1994, 1). The emerging conservative Dana Loesch who has been host of St Louis radio talk show, has discussed the issue of NAACP agreeing on putting politics ahead of civil rights. The national convention has called upon members of the Tea Party Movement to criticize racist elements in their cadre. Limelight of the discussion was Kenneth Gladney, a black St. Louis man who was beaten by a group of union goons. Why Gladney was chosen as a target of attack was quite clear; he was selling conservative memorabilia outside Bernard Middle School, the meeting place of a South St. Louis County health care town hall, organized by super-liberal Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.). Incidentally, the date of the beating and that of the White House briefing to its supporters to “punch back twice as hard” was same. Gladney has been fighting it alone in the court, as local NAACP officials have ignored the cause of civil rights by putting politics over civil rights (Mccarty 2010, 1). III. CONCLUSION NAACP needs to come out of the limited view of its community welfare by working in the direction of internal development, as black Muslims have been doing. They are striving to become economically advanced by promoting their business, making their community members responsible and disciplined, doing family good by education and fighting against drugs and crime. These are more important causes to pursue by an organization than making everything a civil rights issue. The ideal path for NAACP is to put more hard work into urgent causes without sacrificing community interests for petty politics. Reference List Barone, Jeanine. “In The Footsteps of a Dream.” Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site 84, no. 4, (2010): 1-5. http://web.ebscohost.com (accessed June 25, 2011). Duffy, Bernard K. Besel, Richard D. “Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” and the Politics of Cultural Memory: An Apostil.” ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes, and Reviews 23, no. 3, (2010): 184-191. http://web.ebscohost.com (accessed June 25, 2011). Inwood Joshua F.J. “Contested memory in the birthplace of a king: a case study of Auburn Avenue and the Martin Luther King Jr. National Park.” Cultural Geographies 16, no.1 (2009): p87-109. http://web.ebscohost.com (accessed June 25, 2011). Jensen, R. (2001) “Best we get comfortable with King the radical, too.” Houston Chronicle, January 14, 2001, p. 5-C, http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/mlkday.htm (accessed June 25, 2011). Kazin, Michael. “Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Meanings of the 1960s.” AHR Forum: American Historical Review, October 2009, http://web.ebscohost.com (accessed June 25, 2011). Mccarthy, Bob. (13 July 2010). “NAACP Puts Politics Over Civil Rights, Levels Charges of Racism Against Tea Party Movement.” Available from http://bobmccarty.com/2010/07/13/naacp-puts-politics-over-civil-rights/. Internet; accessed 25 June 2011. Sowell, Thomas. “NAACP goes from crusade to hustle.” National Minority Politics 6, 8 (1994): 1, http://web.ebscohost.com. Read More