The Winter of Our Discontent

In the wake of Obama's announcement of the escalation of the "war" in Afghanistan, and the subsequent hulabaloo over his Nobel Peace Prize, I'm reposting a piece that I wrote shortly before Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the U.S. My question now is, "is this the 'hope' part or the 'change' we voted for last year"?

For another great King speech, go here.

I read somewhere a few years ago that Martin Luther King Junior’s legacy had been homogenized in the name of political expediency. The nadir of that process came about in 2001 when Alcatel used images from King’s 1963 “I have a Dream” speech to peddle communication systems.

But the piece to which I refer pointed to a speech Dr. King gave in front of a gathering of labor leaders in 1967. I revisited that speech when I heard that Pastor Rick Warren was ordained to speak at Barack Obama’s inauguration and it struck me that one of the most important voices of the civil rights movement may not have been chosen to speak at the inauguration of the first black president in our nation’s history.

I also found that King’s rhetoric was much closer to that of Reverend Jeremiah Wright than to the plump, somewhat moderate white Pastor from Saddleback Church. I will refrain from pointing out the similarities of that church’s name to a popular film about gay cowboy love.

Reading the text of King’s speech, it amazes me to see the similarities of the Vietnam era to our current Iraq era. King decried a Vietnam War that he believed “produced a shameful order of priorities in which the decay, squalor and pollution of the cities are neglected.

“It has made the Great Society a myth and replaced it with a troubled and confused society. The war has strengthened domestic reaction. It has given the extreme right, the anti-labor, anti-Negro, and anti-humanistic forces a weapon of spurious patriotism to galvanize its supporters into reaching for power, right up to the White House. It hopes to use national frustration to take control and restore the America of social insecurity and power for the privileged,” he said.

In that speech, King criticized politicians who condemned the violent turmoil enveloping urban black populations, saying that, “the users of naval guns, millions of tons of bombs, and revolting napalm cannot speak to Negroes about violence. Only those who are fighting for peace have the moral authority to lecture on non-violence.”

He said that urban blacks “are infinitely less dangerous and immoral than the deliberate acts of escalation of the war in Vietnam,” and that “even in the grip of rage the vast majority have vented their anger on inanimate things, not people. If destruction of property is deplorable, what is the word for the use of napalm on people? What would happen to Negroes if they not only set fires but killed people in the vicinity and explained blandly that some known combatants had to die as a matter of course? Negroes would be called savages if we were so callous. But for generals it is military tactics.”

When King made his speech in November 1967, unemployment had increased by approximately 15 percent in the previous few months, and tens of thousands of people were abruptly thrown out of jobs and training programs in a lousy job market. The corollaries to the first decade of the 21st century are chilling, particularly when King calls national political leaders to task for their warped spending priorities.

“It is disgraceful that a Congress that can vote upwards of $35 billion a year for a senseless immoral war in Vietnam cannot vote a weak $2 billion dollars to carry on our all too feeble efforts to bind up the wound of our nations 35 million poor,” he said. “This is nothing short of a Congress engaging in political guerilla warfare against the defenseless poor of our nation.”

King was accusing the government of terrorist acts against its own people in much the same way that Wright criticized the government in his now-famous sermons.

During his final days, King took a lot of heat for his criticism of war in Vietnam. He was subjected to “the most bitter criticism, by the press, by individuals, and even by some fellow civil rights leaders,” and told to stay in his place.

“I had only one answer for that and it was simply the fact that I have struggled too long and too hard now to get rid of segregation in public accommodations to end up at this point in my life segregating my moral concerns,” he said.

He was assassinated five months after he made that speech.

I find it ironic that on the day after MLK day, when the first-ever black president of the United States of America is set to take the oath of office, the convocation will be given by a man who supports a fiscally and morally debilitating series of wars and “separate but equal” status for a group of Americans.

It’s kinda funny in a sadly disturbing way. Obama keeps reaching out to the right political wing, but people on the left — the dreaded Lib’ruls — seem to continue to wait for representation in this budding administration.

I should probably wait until he gets into office to be thoroughly disappointed.

Published in Sonoma West Times & News, January 14, 2009