The Legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.

(Posted 4-9-2008)

On April 4, 2008, the 40^th anniversary of the assassination of the late Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the commercial American news media covered some of the more well known aspects of his legacy.

The media’s homage was good, as far as it went. However, I think it’s important to note that the coverage was only with respect to Dr. King’s advocacy of civil rights, his repudiation of racism, and his sharing of his dream that one day everyone will judge people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Many people think King was assassinated because white racists hated him because he was so influential and effective as a civil rights leader. But we should not ignore the other reasons certain people hated him – which may have been the main reasons he was assassinated.

In his last years before he was killed, Martin Luther King Jr. increasingly spoke out against militarism, against war, and against economic injustice. In fact, he was one of the first critics against what we now call the "free market corporate globalism" movement, because he recognized it for what it is – American corporate economic imperialism and exploitation of the poorest of the poor in foreign countries, which is actually detrimental to the interests of the American people and the American economy.

Forty years later, all the things King was against are worse. And while there has admittedly been some improvement in the ability of very talented and skilled black people to establish successful careers, there are many indicators that racism is still very much with us, and has increasingly been showing its ugly head since the 1980s.

Here, however, I want to focus on the other things, because they have grown much worse under Reaganism and Bushism. And the comparison of the Vietnam War and Bush’s War in Iraq have become increasingly appropriate.

King was vehemently against the Vietnam War, and he was against U.S. militarism in general. And he spoke about it in ways that are appropriate today with regard to the militarism of many countries, particularly Israel and the United States.

The best example of that is where King said: "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness, in a descending spiral of destruction."

He was absolutely right about that, and he was absolutely right in his condemnation of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. In a 1967 speeches on foreign policy King said: "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos, without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today – my own government."

Most Americans today either forget or are not aware that even though King was a Nobel Peace Prize winner, when his moral voice moved beyond racial discrimination to international issues, some in the commercial news media tended to portray him as a communist pawn because he had become so influential as a peace and anti-war advocate.

For example, Life Magazine accused King of advocating "abject surrender in Vietnam." The New York Times attacked his efforts to link the civil rights and antiwar movements. And The Washington Post claimed that "King has diminished his usefulness to his cause, to his country, and to his people."

Why? Because King’s sermons on Vietnam grew highly critical of the U.S. Government. He declared that "God didn’t call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war."

But King went even further than that. In 1967, King also criticized U.S. economic foreign policy, pointing out the greed of "capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries."

In 1967 King also denounced a Democratic-controlled Congress for increasing the Pentagon budget while cutting anti-poverty programs. He declared that: "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on its military than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."

If King had not been assassinated for speaking out like that, and if were still alive today, he would be shocked at how much worse things have become since then, particularly under the Reagan and Bush regimes.

If King were alive he would surely be highly critical of most U.S. policies, especially the domestic and foreign economic policies. He would probably condemn tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation, globalism, privatization, and all the other things that have decreased the effectiveness of government and empowered and enabled the wealthiest few and their mega-corporations and big businesses. He would certainly condemn the policies regarding Bush’s War in Iraq, and Bush’s "war on terror."

Furthermore, because King would have been a savvy analyst and righteous critic who would shame greedy hypocrites and arrogantly proud and militant warmongers, he would surely have been berated and condemned on all the right-wing conservative media, especially the highly biased, right-wing Fox News network, as well as right-wing conservative talk radio shows and other right-wing conservative news outlets. He would be falsely accused of fomenting "class warfare," and the right-wing "hawks" of today would have surely vilified and treated King unfairly, just as they treated Michael Moore, the Dixie Chicks, and other early critics of Bush’s war.

Martin Luther King Jr. was correct in just about everything he said. He was a very brave and courageous champion of the poor, the disadvantaged, and the oppressed, just as all true servants of God have been. And he was quite correct that the U.S. has been approaching spiritual death headlong, for quite some time.

In fact, the U.S. has even further approached spiritual death under Reaganism, which was continued and expanded under the reign of George W. Bush, who ironically claims to be "doing God’s will" even though he actually serves Mammon, not God. And that is a terrible shame, as has become increasingly evident.

We can, however, turn things around and progress forward, instead of continue to be pushed further backward by wealthy right-wing conservative forces.

That’s why I need to tell you that electing a good Democrat as president would only be a good start, and just a first step to really improving our world. We must go further, as I’ve explained on the pages titled A New Declaration of Independence, and How the Meek Shall Inherit the Earth.

I encourage you to read those pages, and the page on Partisan Politics, to see why we need a reformation of government, along with a reformation of religion.