What Glenn Beck Gets Wrong: How he Misunderstands Martin Luther King, Jr.
These accusations were then used by the FBI to try and discredit King’s moral leadership (they also leaked news of the tapes proving King’s sexual infidelities). That knowledge was passed on to King by Bobby Kennedy, who advised King it was best that he remove Levison from his organization in order that Levison’s former CP membership did not compromise the civil rights movement. King reluctantly fired him.
Yet what Hoover and his agents objected to, and saw as dangerous, was the civil rights movement itself. As one of Hoover’s top aides, William C. Sullivan, wrote to the Director, King’s “I Have a Dream” speech — the very one all Americans today justly celebrate — showed King to be “the most dangerous Negro of the future in this nation from the standpoint of communism, the Negro, and national security.” The speech in which King uttered the famous words about judging a person by the “content of his character” and not the color of his skin, was termed “demagogic” by Sullivan. This agent, Sullivan, became the person in the Bureau who led its campaign to discredit King, disrupt his movement, and destroy King personally.
Yet after hearing Bond’s remarks, Beck was incredulous. There must be a reason why Julian Bond would say such a thing on the week of King’s birthday celebration, Beck thought. Beck and his associate Pat began to speculate. First it had to do with Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, when “radical socialism is discredited.” But the real purpose behind Bond’s claim that King was a socialist was that if we celebrate King and King is good, and we learn that King was a socialist, it means that socialism is fine for America. Hence since Obama is both black and a socialist, there is nothing wrong with him also having a socialist agenda just like King. Here are Beck’s exact words:
“I think this is probably a more likely scenario that the president is under fire and we know that a radicalized socialist is a label that is going to be attached to this president and so we want to show you that a radicalized socialist is Martin Luther King and it’s okay.”
Beck often denies that he believes in conspiracy theories. He has in fact denied some major ones that are popular on both the left and the light. But here, he has definitely put forth one of his own: Julian Bond spoke about King’s belief in socialism to make Obama’s socialist agenda acceptable. Beck goes on to argue that this “icon” America has created, whom we say has “combined George Washington and Abraham Lincoln,” is probably being falsely portrayed as a socialist. King, he said, in reality “didn’t exist that way. He was different than that.”
Beck then explains:
“I don’t know when it became politically okay to say that Martin Luther King was a radical socialist. You wouldn’t even say that about President Obama. If I got on the air and said the guy is a radical socialist, which I do, they hammer me to death! Well, if it’s okay that Martin Luther King was a radical socialist, why is it bad to say Barack Obama is a radical socialist? Am I reading this wrong?”
But Bond was not saying anything was wrong with King, only stating a fact. And it was King himself, as we shall see, who made it clear numerous times that he did see himself as some kind of a socialist. And even if Beck and others say Obama is a socialist, the President himself continually says he is not ideological and is a pragmatist. Beck, however, sees this as an attempt to legitimize Obama’s socialism by suddenly praising King as a socialist. For Beck, it was not, as some might think, a fact that simply came to Bond’s mind during a radio interview. It was part of a conscious plan, in which Bond was speaking for the Obama administration.
Finally, Beck sees what he thinks the left is attempting with this sudden proclamation. (Keep in mind that all we have is one statement in an interview with Julian Bond, not a barrage of similar statements, especially from the administration.) What the left is trying to do, he argues, is not “let this one slide. They may pretend they are being more moderate,” but if “they are using Martin Luther King as a radical socialist icon, they are not going to back away from socialism.” So Bond’s announcement was clearly meant to legitimize socialism and announce to the world the Obama administration’s own socialist program! And if this is the case, Beck wonders, would King’s birthday ever have been made a national holiday, if the news that King was a socialist had come out? When, Beck adds, did socialism “become acceptable in America?” and hence when “did it become okay and expect us to celebrate [King Day] today”?
It is clear that when he talks about King and socialism, Beck does not know very much about this subject. First, Julian Bond was completely accurate in his statement, and nothing he said is false or, even more important, new. All one has to do is to read David Garrow’s Pulitzer Prize winning biography of King, Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King. Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which was published in 1987, and in a new paper edition in 2004.
Among other things you will find in this superb biograph, is the following. Speaking in Selma, Alabama, King said:
“Call it what you may, call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all of God’s children.”
At another time, he added:
“Obviously we’ve got to have some form of socialism, but America’s not ready to hear it yet.”
Near the end of his life, talking to Operation Breadbasket, King asked that those listening to him turn off their tape recorders. Referring to his belief in democratic socialism, King told the group: “I can’t say this publicly, and if you say I said it I’m not gonna admit to it.” He went on to say that, as someone there reported, “he didn’t believe that capitalism could meet the needs of poor people, ‘and that what we might need to look at was a kind of socialism, but a democratic form of socialism.’”
As for Marx, King said he thought Marx “had a great passion for social justice,” but had fallen afoul of materialism and was not spiritual enough. Yet he was thankful that Marx thought that “class issues had to be raised.” He then added: “Something is wrong with the economic system of our nation … something is wrong with capitalism.” America, he thought, did not have to be “Communist or Marxist,” but yet it needed a more equitable distribution of wealth. And yes, he did say in prison to Bond : “If we are going to achieve real equality, the United States will have to adopt a modified form of socialism.”
This is history, like it or not. One is free to disagree with King’s largely privately held socialist views. Most Americans rejected that philosophy at the time, which is why King asked his followers not to tape him, and when he did make public statements, as he did surprisingly in Selma, they were few and far between. King knew that his role was that of a leader of the broad civil rights movement, and that is why the nation celebrates his birthday. We honor King for his heroic and brave leadership of the non-violent movement for civil rights. That King also believed in some moderate form of socialism does not discredit his leadership on behalf of civil rights.
Moreover, all students of the movement know that King followed in the footsteps of the old socialist trade union leader, A. Philip Randolph. Randolph led the Pullman Porters union, and chaired the 1963 March on Washington. He had been instrumental for decades in the fight, indeed all through the FDR years, when he fought the Roosevelt administration and forced the President to reluctantly create a civil rights commission.
Randolph’s chief aide, who ran the Marc, and who became King’s single most important advisor, was the social-democrat Bayard Rustin. It was Rustin who educated King about Ghandi’s philosophy of non-violence, and who taught him how to organize and run a mass movement. When Rustin first visited King at home at the very start of the movement, he found that the preacher had a gun in his home for protection. Rustin told him that if he was to lead and create a successful movement, it had to be non-violent and its leader could not have a gun, even if it meant his own home was less secure. Rustin also believed fiercely in the anti-Communist cause, and supported American power on behalf of freedom. He held no love for the Viet Cong, and advised King strongly not to publicly oppose the war. (King ignored that advice.)
So I ask Glenn Beck the following: Now that you know that Bond was accurate and that King’s moderate socialist beliefs are no secret, do you really think that Bond’s statement is part of a plot to legitimize Obama’s socialist agenda? Do you think that King’s more or less private sentiments regarding socialism mean that he does not deserve to be honored for his courageous stand and leadership in the movement for civil rights? Shouldn’t we try to live in the real world amidst shades of grey?
“Levison, in fact, was no longer a Communist.”
Stanley Levison apparently remained a committed Communist. He officially dropped out of the party merely to make it look good. Levison may also be the person most responsible for damaging the relationship between black voters and the Republican Party. He hated the GOP for its avowed capitalism and anti-Communism. There is much evidence indicating that Levison had overwhelming influence over King. He may have even intimidated the civil right leader. Levison also wrote a number of King’s speeches and perhaps a few of his books.
“That King also believed in some moderate form of socialism does not discredit his leadership on behalf of civil rights.”
This claim is only half right. Martin Luther King, Jr. did an incredible amount of good in the Old South. That is beyond reasonable debate. His courageous efforts dramatically quickened the pace of reform. Unfortunately, the man was not cognizant of his limitations. He was intellectually shallow and his PhD fraudulently obtained. King’s socialism was becoming quite controversial by the time of his murder. So much so, that the Harris polling group reported he was no longer listed among the top ten most popular Americans. I am convinced that had he lived a few years longer—he would have become a secondary figure. King was ultimately more useful as a dead martyr to the non-violent leftist establishment than an increasingly marginalized figure. America still suffers from the awful domestic legislation pushed through both Houses of Congress by Lyndon B. Johnson in honor of his memory. The resulting destruction was so horrible that an excellent argument might be made that the country would have better off had King never been born. Think about it for a moment. What would have been the likelihood of the affirmative action bills of that time period becoming the law of the land? I am making a number of controversial assertions, but I will be glad to respond to any serious questions.
The bigger question I have is:
Would King rethink his position on Soft-Socialism now that one can see the disastrous fruits bore out with welfare, unrealistic bank loans, housing etc.?
Many of King’s political/philosophical positions were in context with his time, other positions/attitudes he took were timeless and wise to this very day. Much the same can be said for many wise people of their generation.
Just as you can’t take away the fact that Tiger Woods is a good golfer despite his personal life, you can’t take away the fact that Martin L. King did a lot of good for the poor. No need to throw out the baby with the bath-water, Mr. Beck.
I don’t like Mr. King to me he was a womanizing race-baiter– like Jesse Jackson.
If you cheat the ones who trust you most don’t expect me to believe anything that comes out of you’re mouth.
Your actions speak so loud I can’t hear what you are saying. As my father use to say.
I do not think he deserves his own day especially when all of the American fathers are reduced to a generic Presidents day.
3. gatekeeper96740,
Much of what you say/feel maybe well be true but unfortunately womanizing/lying/cheating goes on more often than not in politics no matter how much one ‘front’s as a good Christian/Family-man or someone truly ‘for the people’ etc.
Glass half empty or half full? I guess it’s all perspective.
Sorry, I do not buy into moral realitivism.
That nonsense has gone on long enough.
It is not a case of a half empty glass. If you cheat on your spouse something is wrong with your character.You lack integrity and if you hold a position of power… get out.
It doesn’t matter if it is in politics or a pastor… get out… get it squared away.One needs be ruthless with onesself in looking at the truth of your own heart.
Because not only should King have publicly admitted he was a cheat but a liar as well.
You don’t cheat on a wife without lying.
He needed to look in the mirror and say if I am lying to her what else am I lying to myself about, only then can you grow.
No way would I let him skate on this.
And yes I am that ruthless with my own heart.
It is not perspective. Morality is not perspective.That’s more of the moral relitive argument brainwashing one gets out of Liberal proffs.
Let me get this straight. You’re just now realizing that Beck doesn’t know what he’s talking about?
Sorry, I do not buy into moral realitivism.
I don’t either. You’re an immoral pig, end of story.
By the contents of character, not by the color of the skin”.
THAT is why there is MLK Day.
Flawed person? Yes. Flawed economic beliefs? Yes.
But he pointed out an ethic that has to be followed or we perish. WE owe him that, for sure.
Redneck America has it figured out. WE await equal perspective from other colors.
I don’t think we need to believe that MLK was right about everything to think he’s worth celebrating.
I completely agree with the then-radical view held by MLK that people deserve equal opportunities and rights regardless of the color of their skin.
I strongly disagree however with his apparent belief that some people are entitled to the contents of my wallet by virtue of their financial situation. Traditionally these people are known as “muggers”, “pickpockets”, or “Democrats”.
We’ve been hearing cry-baby Obama whining for a year now, about how all his problems were inherited from the Bush administration – “Bush made me do it.”
Lately,Progressives have had resort to a new fallacy: “Bush did it”, to justify civilian trials for KSM. Whether King was known to be a socialist, isn’t it likely that Bond brought it up now to legitimize Obama’s socialism – the “King did it” variation of the same fallacy?
It’s not clear to me that Radosh’s article impairs Beck’s argument at all–we don’t need to posit any conspiracies in order to grasp the polemical methods of the Left: install a radical icon by mainstreaming that icon; and then justify further radicalizations by unveiling the reality behind the mainstreamed image. That MLK is a perfect candidate for such treatment today, given the links that have been constructed between King and Obama, seems pretty obvious. The thought could have just occurred to Bond in the interview–that would just tell us what happens to be on the mind of the Left.
I am very supportive of the canonization of MLK as a kind of democratic saint–and I am aso supportive of the kind of ideological “photoshopping” that has gone into the process. We live in a free society and anyone can find out the truth for themselves–but there is nothing wrong with helping preserve the public myths by “contextualizing” the facts that would tarnish it. It is better to use the myth than “debunk” it–to bring up the example mentioned by David Thomson, rather than hold King responsible for Affirmative Action, why not use the arguments he canonized against it (regardless of what King himself may have believed)?
MLK like Lincoln are wrongly worshiped in this country. Most of it based on dishonest representations especially on Lincoln. They gloss over major flaws to keep the lofty narrative.
MLK was a tool of the progressive momement. The left used him to gain much ground into the black community as they did helping the NAACP get off the ground. The left knew by canonizing MLK and raising the stature of the NAACP and promoting LBJs welfare state and Great Society drivel, they could get a permanent voting block. And it worked!
“By the contents of character, not by the color of the skin”. Who believes this pap? In a world not controlled by the left perhaps it is true. But again the left only uses it as a tool to bludgeon the right, while actually the color of skin is very much the primary requirement for gifts of the left to bestow on you in exchange for votes.
You can contextualize a lie all you want but it is still a lie. You can photoshop evil all you want and it is still evil. I give you Obama as a perfect example of both.
There is only truth.
#1 David Thompson,
Wow, brother, please tell us what you really think. Actually, I have to agree with some of your points. I respect Dr. King enormously because of the way he went about achieving his ends. The non-violent confrontations added credibility to his cause. Unfortunately, his sayings and legacy have been twisted beyond recognition by the very people they were meant to benefit. Case-in-point: Barack Obama received 90+% of the Black vote because of the color of his skin, not the content of his character.
Where’s the “conspiracy” theorizing?
Radosh, you use so many (nearly impenetrable) words to make a case against Beck that, at the tedious article’s end, I still couldn’t understand. You had a simple point to make, yet wandered all over the map and didn’t make it.
Beck’s words were direct, simple and few. They made a case of standard political maneuvering — never conspiracy!
All this about MLK was known at the time, and wasn’t any surprise to anyone as most of the media and youthful elites (like you, Simon, Chessler, etc., at the time) constantly blabbed leftist claptrap.
So what’s to conspire?
Methinks, Ron, ye protest too much. Something rotten in Radoshland.
“you can’t take away the fact that Martin L. King did a lot of good for the poor.”
Martin Luther King, Jr. may have sincerely wished to help the poor—but he instead severely harmed them. Advocating socialist doctrines regardless of their supposed mildness inherently damages the overall economy. Those of more modest means suffer the most.
I earlier made a mistake by confusing the Harris Poll with the Gallup organization. But here is the link to back up my claim that MLK’s popularity was declining at the time of his death:
http://tinyurl.com/yhcn4yf
It would behoove everyone to obtain a copy of King’s own writings, or least those he put his own name on. The work is edited by Clayborne Carson and entitled, The Autobiography Of Martin Luther King, Jr. The civil rights leader slimed his own country by describing it as a racist murderer of the people in Vietnam. King also had some favorable words to utter on behalf of affirmative action policies.
The Revered King seems to have unwittingly played the good cop role while groups like the Black Panthers portrayed themselves as the bad cops. This allowed him to get his way on many things. King could implicitly blackmail guilt tripped whites by reminding them he was nonviolent. It was better to make deals with him so that they could be protected from those openly espousing physical brutality.
so, ask Beck.
We listen carefully to Beck’s program on tv. We have found little fault with it or the content.
Shouldn’t we try to live in the real world amidst shades of grey?
Ahh yes. The common refrain of liberals. How about shades of grey when viewing comments from the right? MLK Jr was a Republican. Isn’t that some reason to doubt the depth of feeling MLK had for socialism? Judge me on the content of my character not the color of my skin? Isn’t that also a reason to doubt how deeply MLK may have embraced socialism? Shades of grey cuts both ways.
Beck was just wondering, wow, now it’s okay to call MLK a socialist. What has changed to make this possible?
And what Beck was refering to was the FBI campaign to demonize MLK, part of which was to identify MLK as a socialist or communist. At the time, MLK was publicly denying that and privately proclaiming it.
Anyone, who brought up MLK’s socialist views was attacked as lying and distorting MLK and was probably a closet racist too. So, Julian Bond gets up and proclaims MLK a socialist, like that was a positive thing.
Beck’s wondering, why say that now? Radosh says that Bond made the statement in an offhand way and that there has been no leftwind campaign to ‘socialize’ MLK as a way to shore up Obama. Okay, true. And on the other hand, someone always has to go first. I believe it was Janeane Garofalo, who first called the Tea Parties ‘straight out racists’. It took weeks before that sentiment was mainstreamed on MSNBC, so that today, the racism charge is part of the standard attack on the Tea Party.
Will Julian Bond be the forerunner of the attempt to mainstream socialism? Time will tell.
I think MLK was basically a decent man, and a black man reasonably outraged by his own experience in the SOuth and at the hands of J. Edgar and his out of control FBI.
In his place, if anyone that appeared to be reasonable offered me assistance in my fight against the injustice I faced, I would accept it and I would likey be swayed favorably by their arguments. I, like MLK, am only human and I have a very low cynicism quotient.
To his credit, I believe that, had King lived to see the fruits of the CRA and the War on Poverty, of affirmative action and the resultant destruction of the black American family, he would have been appalled and outraged. The 45 year legacy of soft commie control of places like Detroit and Chicago, where the killing of young black men and boys is predominantly by young black men and boys, where the nuclear family has almost disappeared to be replaced by 75% illigitimate birthrates would have sickened him and he would have repudiated it. The progressives have delivered American black people to a new era of soft slavery, where their salvation must derive from the benificence of enlightened (read progressive) white men. King would have recognized it and would have hated it as much as he hated the segregation and racial injustice before 1965.
I think he had sufficient strength of character tthat he would have recognized and admitted that he was being used as a tool by the commies and their Soviet masters (Pete Seeger, anyone. oh, Pete…) and would have revolted again.
Whatever your feelings about this black American, it is sad and ironic that he was used most effectively by the progressive left after his murder to further their agenda. That the agenda ultimately betrayed the black Americans it was proported to benefit is the real tragedy associated with Martin Luther King.
I don’t think King was a moderate socialist. (what TF is a moderate socialist)
….he was a SOCIALIST.
Ron while you are asking questions ..how about this one. read the link and see if there isn’t a story for Beck in it.
http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/36/EntryId/1261/Should-Fox-News-Register-as-a-Saudi-Agent.aspx
I am glad Glenn is out there shining a light on some of the issues that get ignored by the media. Still I think there is a lot that is still neglected, some perhaps willfully.
I also have a question. Why did MLK get a national holiday in the USA? I think he was a communist not just a socialist. (or a “useful idiot” of the communists. I don’t know which is worse)
Mr King made only one major contribution to the advancement of our nation and even then it took but the time it took him to say, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character!”
That is the dream of every decent American and to the extent the race pimps and other “Democrats” who have for the most part stolen Mr King’s legacy will permit? We have achieved his and our dream.
But as for the suggestions his ‘non-violent’ protests — or, perhaps especially, Gandhi’s, were particularly effective in and of themselves? Bah! Humbug! Go tell that to Tienanmen’s thousands of innocently and peacefully protesting dead and maimed. Or to the innocently and peacefully protesting dead millions of Germany’s camps — or of Stalin’s, Mao’s, Pol Pot’s and of North Korea’s Kims’!
For, just as once great British and their Law that gave the Indians their independence, (and thus set them back two hundred years) so it was we the people who fought and died by the hundreds of thousands to guarantee the freedom of every American. (And to thus deliver millions of them to the soft bigotry of the “Democrats” low expectations) And it was our beloved fraternal republic’s founding law that provided the rock upon which our nation’s warriors fought and died.
Mr. Radosh, as a regular reader of your columns, one who, if memory serves me, has never really taken issue with what you write, I believe that you’re making much ado about nothing. Even if Glenn Beck made an error in believing there might be something conspiratorial about Julian Bond’s remarks, it does nothing to take away from the gravity of what Mr. Bond stated.
So, I’ll say it now for Mr. Beck: Mea culpa. Mea Culpa.
I, too, hold MLK in high esteem (at least I did before you wrote your column – more on this later). He accomplished many great things. And, until you informed me, I was not aware that he thought so highly of socialism. (I knew that he attended communist training classes, but I thought he rejected that ism. Who really knows?) But, there is something going on in this nation. Certain people are trying to destroy it from within. I don’t think it’s mere coincidence that we did away with celebrating Washington’s and Lincoln’s birthdays, now lumping them together as President’s Day, while the only “named” holiday we now celebrate is MLK Day. It’s another example of revisionism, intended to point us away from our roots to a new and glorious system of social equality – where, before we know it, we all become slaves of the state.
So, if I were you, I would not be so hard on Glenn Beck. We all make mistakes, just as you have in writing this column. Unless of course you are part of some broad conspiracy to undermine the reputation of MLK. If so, you have succeeded, for I now have far less respect for him, knowing he was at least a socialist, if not a communist. (Of course, I’m only joking about your conspiratorial intentions. But, who knows? In this country, anymore, there’s a conspirator under every rock.)
BTW, I was a socialist at one time, until I figured out for myself that liberalism=socialism=slavery, the same sort of slavery as the poor of America has been unfortunate enough to succumb to, as evidenced by their voting overwhelmingly for, and backing anything, that the Progressives feed them, as they vilify the middle and upper classes in their unending class warfare attacks, which seem to rise to new heights every time our Glorious Leader is in front of the teleprompter.
Liking Beck, and generally respecting the authors on this site, I read the article carefully. I just don’t see any ‘there’ there regarding what Beck said.
The claim that Levinson stopped being a communist because he quit the party at some point in time is preposterous, and belies bias and lack of intellectual rigor in what purports to be the delivery of scholarly insight.
I have heard that King was indeed a communist or socialist, and we do know that many of his advisors were. We see evidence all the time that many black people find the ideas of Marx compelling.
Not knowing a lot about these matters, and despairing of finding information on King that is not biased, I was left with the impression that Radosh was offended by Beck but had some trouble persuading me of anything beyond Radosh’s respect for socialist ideas. The clumsy admonition that Beck need look beyond black and white thinking about things struck me as a fitting close to a murky and poorly executed piece of pro King advocacy.
21. P T Bull:
Liking Beck, and generally respecting the authors on this site, I read the article carefully. I just don’t see any ‘there’ there regarding what Beck said.
The claim that Levinson stopped being a communist because he quit the party at some point in time is preposterous, and belies bias and lack of intellectual rigor in what purports to be the delivery of scholarly insight.
I have heard that King was indeed a communist or socialist, and we do know that many of his advisors were. We see evidence all the time that many black people find the ideas of Marx compelling.
Not knowing a lot about these matters, and despairing of finding information on King that is not biased, I was left with the impression that Radosh was offended by Beck but had some trouble persuading me of anything beyond Radosh’s respect for socialist ideas. The clumsy admonition that Beck need look beyond black and white thinking about things struck me as a fitting close to a murky and poorly executed piece of pro King advocacy.
excellent comment P T.
it isn’t like just because Jones isn’t visible in the present white house administration that his ideas aren’t. Jones and Obama have the same goal so it isn’t a big jump to get that they are BOTH marxists.
Ron does Beck really bother you that much ?
P.S. I have for some time thought shining some light on the reality concealed by the beatification of King is a very interesting notion.
He is famous for his colorblind vision of America, as articulated in his famous dream speech. Conservatives often use this as an argument against institutional curative racism, and I was fascinated to read some black scholars stating that they hated when King’s colorblind vision was brought up, and that the sainted King had in fact changed his mind later in life to a more (comfortable to them) confrontational approach to whites.
I don’t know if this is true or not, but it is clear that the civil rights movement of the 60s is the most sacred of sacred cows for the left–and King’s noble vision of equality has often been used as a mask to conceal the hate and radicalism that became the civil rights movement, and may or may not have been King’s later vision as well.
Martin Luther King, Jr. was a convinced pacifist. He more fervently believed in nonviolence that Mahatma Gandhi. This is the number one reason why he categorically rejected Communism. Sadly, he failed to comprehend the damaging consequences of so-called moderate socialism. There were a number of Communists within his organization—but he never shared their worldview.
If advocates of a genuinely equal, color-blind America insist upon the principles King himself put forward most explicitly in his most famous speech we will be far more successful than we will by insisting upon exposing his “real” socialistic or communistic beliefs. In that moment when he most resonated with the vast majority of Americans, he said exactly the right thing, and to great effect. (Of course his methods could only have worked in a democratic society–but that also testifies to his mindfulness regarding the norms of such a society) In that way we could put the onus of tarnishing King’s image on those who would like to radicalize it–even if that’s a part of who King really was, we can very convincingly argue that, regardless, that’s the not the King Americans have placed in the pantheon of defenders of liberty. We can excuse King’s mistakes while emphasizing that they were, indeed, mistakes.
Radosh, what are you doing writing for this site? How did you ever get the cred to be allowed to write for any conservative media? This is about one of the lamest articles I have ever read on this site. Beck not understanding history and misunderstanding of Bond’s obvious political manipulation by reminding the public that King had socialist leanings? Are you a closet communist? Do you take us as being stupid. Further, Beck is not attacking King nor is he claiming that King did or did not have socialist sympathies..he astutely noticed the political manipulation and the attempt to make socialism a normal, acceptable, and cuddly alternative.
22. Supreme Allied Commander:
“I have heard that King was indeed a communist or socialist, and we do know that many of his advisors were. We see evidence all the time that many black people find the ideas of Marx compelling.”
Really? You’ve heard that? How can you be sure when you say;
“Not knowing a lot about these matters, and despairing of finding information on King that is not biased . .. ”
Perhaps you should set MLK aside and focus on matters you DO know a lot about . . . perhaps oil viscosity or maybe how to play “Battleship.”
This article does not make the point it intends to make. Whenever one needs thousands of words to try to contradict a few short sentences, one can rightly suspect that the points of contradiction are, at best, extremely subtle or, at worst, absolute nonsense. I lean towards the latter in this case.
I like many of the comments above, but want to emphasize what Beck himself has emphasized…Progressivism is a modified form of Marxism that has exactly the same ends but has changed the means from ‘revolution’ to ‘evolution’. The term ‘liberal’ was co-opted by the extremely illiberal progressives in the early 20th century.
Ah revisionism. Dr. King like many great men had clay feet, but at this date to totally denigrate him as irrelevant or devious is in my opinion an insult to a man who helped usher in a largely peaceful end to racial segregation in the South.
I am a child of the sixties and was in the military when Dr. King and Robert Kennedy were killed. The despair and hopelessness many Black GI’s felt was palpable. These were very incendiary times and King and the Southern Christian Leadership’s decision to forsake violence and separate themselves from SNCC and the Black Panthers did much to calm the rage in the Black community.
I lived in Alabama for 17 years and to this day , while race relations are probably better there than in many parts of the USA, the memory of Bull Connor and the police dogs and fire hoses are known to many Black people my age.
Associating Obama with King in any fashion other than the historical fact of a Black man being elected President in a once divided nation is erroneous. Obama’s roots are with Ayers and Dohrn and the hard left radicals who poisoned the well of change in the 60′s. Dr. King was a preacher who stood against injustice. Having served in the infantry in Viet Nam, while I don’t share his antiwar views, they are legitimate Christian ethical positions.
While Dr. King’s life and work is certainly open to scrutiny; to dismiss him as a dangerous or irrelevant historical figure ,I think says more about his critics than about him. On one hand there are those who didn’t live in those times and filter everything through their own ideologies. A lot of talk radio personalities fit this bill, being largely ignorant of anything outside the echo chamber. Michael Savage is an exception, having experienced many facets of life and not being a flack for the GOP.
I think a lot of white folks on the right live in their own enclaves and have no empathy for what many blacks experienced in the South . While statist policies have wreaked havoc in the inner cities and destroyed traditional black families, dismissing a real history of injustice and oppression shows the ignorance of those who hold such views . Honoring Dr. King is a just and fitting memorial to the historic struggle to end discrimination in the South.
Skeeziks–Supreme Allied Commander was simply quoting my words, so I will respond. It is typical of your sloppy trollery that you can’t even figure out who made a comment.
To put this in context, when I say I know ‘little’ about something, I still consider myself to know far more about it than you do.
If you did know anything on this subject, you would surely have shared it. I can assure you that I am not alone in finding your expressed feelings to be boring and of no interest.
Wow, skeez, way to retort. Since you are an authority on MLK help us with the following:
Perhaps you can refute the charges leveled against MLK that he was indeed a socialist and communist sympathizer.
Perhaps you can inform us as to any message that MLK offered has been heard and employed by the Dems and black Americans.
Perhaps you can educate us on the apparent contradiction of affirmative action/EEO/”minorities encouraged to apply” and “…not be judged on the color of their skin…”
27. PT
it is best not to respond to them trolls. they never offer any solutions and just use tired and dishonest Alinsky techniques to try to muddy the waters.
they are morally bankrupt. they will not even offer critical thinking to their own (or George Soros’) argument.
regards
Adam, I found your defense of a ‘non-revisionist’ view of King to be more persuasive than anything I could have thought of. This could be likened to some notion that the message is more important or relevant than the messenger.
I still believe the civil rights movement is morally corrupt today and that understanding it fully must necessarily touch on King’s personal and public acts in the movement including those who he influenced and who influenced him.
But as you allude to, his most resonant message was of a colorblind america, and referring to it continues to torment race-baiting ‘leaders’ who try and trade on King’s legacy.
SAC–agreed. I am a bit of a hyprocrite here as I coached others to ignore this troll not so long ago. In any case, I have expressed my distain, I stand by my remarks, and further responses to ignorant baiting are not necessary.
I’m not sure I understand the point of this article.
Beck’s style is to ask rhetorical questions in a sarcastic tone…for effect. (The sarcasm doesn’t translate in the transcript.) He knows and many others know that MLK was a socialist. But, most Americans and many of his listeners/viewers do not.
I applaud Mr. Beck for his radio and television programs.
“Do you think that King’s more or less private sentiments regarding socialism mean that he does not deserve to be honored for his courageous stand and leadership in the movement for civil rights?”
Yes. Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity, no matter how noble the pretext in which it clothes itself.
Had the South been allowed to move at its own speed–and it was moving, despite what its detractors think–much evil would have been avoided.
King became, knowingly or unknowingly, a weapon in the hands of America’s enemies, and we may yet find that the forces they set in motion have brought us down.
Pretty sure that Glenn Beck believes that Socialism and Communism are secular religions. As such, his discussion of Julian Bond, MLK, and Obama are not so much a discussion of a ‘plot’ or ‘conspiracy theory’ as they are of Bond discussing a secular religion that is probably shared between the three. Bond would likely be supporting his own progressive beliefs by linking Obama and MLK in a shared way of thinking.
Beck discusses many things from the perspective of someone who is not an academic and who HAS been misled by the US educational system and the MSM. His signature issue is the subtlety (e.g., MLK’s low-key discussion of his own socialism) and inevitable advancement of the Progressives in taking over this country. Progressives have the same ends as Marxists and only differ in that their means include evolution as opposed to revolution.
MLK is the far-left’s ‘bloody shirt’, and they will indeed hold him up for public view whenever their motives or methods are questioned. Really, Mr. Radosh, this is beyond question at this point, don’t you think? BTW, thanks for bringing up the J. Edgar Hoover boogyman – it allows this humble simpleton finally to put you into the correct ideological cubbyhole.
During Obama’s campaign (pre-election phase), even USING the word socialist was almost considered hate-speech. One year into his presidency, it’s really no big deal. They’re polling the public on it.
My dad lived through this era as a young adult. He maintains that even if MLK was publicly non-violent his supporters were not. In fact, he claims at the time Jesse Jackson was called “Matches” Jackson for his bent towards a violent reaction toward anyone who refuses MLK’s offer. (MLK comes to town claiming non-violence and is rejected. Then Jackson comes in a causes trouble, teaching those that rejected MLK a lesson. Kind of the “silver or the lead” choice given people by the Colombian drug cartels.)
If true, I don’t know. But dad was convinced. As for MLK’s reaction to today’s condition of the black community, I do believe he would be appalled. As much as he wanted some redistribution of wealth, I do not believe he would have had pride in the generational welfare recipients running around the nation today. If he were serious in his “content of their character” point, he could have no other reaction.
Would he be marginalized? Only if he held to his public principles and was no longer useful to the real socialist/communist agenda co-opting his movement. They would use him and then destroy him when he became a problem or an embarrassment. That is what they do.
I like the moderate tone of your column but I think that you don’t see the whole problem in the light of truth: we DON’t celebrate Dr. MLK Day to celebrate the political ideas of MLK but to remember the fight for civil rights.
Therefore, to speak about Dr. MLK as a socialist IS a way to turn the table on the country…just when Obama proposes socialist AGENDAS.
So, I do see that Beck has a point.
What I don’t like in your column is your preemptive defense of Obama: Obama SAYS he is not an ideologue.
Therefore …what ?
Should we just smile and relax or OBSERVE and JUDGE from his ACTIONS if he is a communist or not ???
I personally thought that Obama was just an opportunist, a caviar-leftist like many until…until he started proposing one policy after another in a consistent line with the communist idea to destroy America from within.
So, on the whole, with a radical administration in power, it is HIGHLY probable that the attempt to highlight Dr. MLK “socialist” ideas IS IN FACT an attempt to legitimize the ACTIONS of these radical administration.
Your final line about the “gray” that we should all accept for the sake of rational discussion is correct:
could you please ask the president to avoid calling the Police stupid while saying that we must not jump to conclusions when a muslim jihadist massacres American Warriors ?
I would like to see a president that is at least 10 % a president, and not a radical communist ALL THE TIME.
PS Not reviewed for spelling mistakes.
33. Sherab Zangpo:
I think Ron is just trying to jab Glenn Beck in the eye.
he is using MLK as other socialist do.
affirmative action is as racist as it gets.
Thanks, PT Bull (#30). I’ll also add that it’s best not to seek to overturn such settled judgments of iconic individuals in a democratic society unless absolutely necessary. Trying to convince hundreds of millions of Americans that they’ve been wrong about King all along seems to me the kind of quixotic quest we can leave to the Left.
Mr. Radosh doesn’t seem to have the courage to come out and say so, but it’s pretty obvious that he doesn’t like Beck and is using this flimsy opportunity to spread the left’s meme on Beck that he’s a stupid racist, he doesn’t call Beck a stupid racist he just implies it.
the Lindsey Graham wing of the Republican party goes on the (passive-agressive) attack yet again.
Adam, I suspect the most quixotic quest is that of convincing the american people that the federal reserve is stealing their wealth(which I believe), and King’s socialism is an easy sell compared to that.
I wasn’t saying you convinced me, just that your argument was very strong–which from me is probably a better compliment anyway.
Just to be clear–I only hear about 45 minutes a week of glen beck when driving around. My dad tells me beck says nutty things at times, and that seems within the realm of possibility to me.
What I am saying here is that after considering the arguments, Beck’s comments in this case don’t seem nutty to me.
What I hear when Dr. King said “the United States will have to adopt a modified form of socialism” is a man who did not believe the dream of judging a man by the content of his character would ever come true. A man who did not believe the white man would ever be fair and the black man would never have a chance. Oh well, it was a nice speech.
Well, PT Bull, that would be an example of a quixotic quest that is absolutely necessary–in oter words, convincing Americans that the federal reserve is sophisticated and dangerous theft is a battle worth fighting–my point is that trying to convince them that King was really a dangerous subversive unworthy of their admiration is not such a battle
Well, PT Bull, that would be an example of a quixotic quest that is absolutely necessary–in other words, convincing Americans that the federal reserve is sophisticated and dangerous theft is a battle worth fighting–my point is that trying to convince them that King was really a dangerous subversive unworthy of their admiration is not such a battle
This article manages to substantiate Beck’s case.
At Ron: That Bond’s statement might not be part of a plot in NO way makes Beck’s speculation un-reasonable. It is fair to say, I believe, that whatever Mr. Bonds motives his statement will be used to legitimize Obama’s socialist agenda. That “to legitimize” anyone’s socialist agenda is inherently evil, is course beyond dispute. The best socialism can achieve is “class warfare” however it’s most likely result is slavery.
At David Thomson #1: I believe the country would have been better off if MLK had not been killed.
“in the face of brutal force employed by racist Southern law enforcement agencies”
Another “expert” that throws around words that he doesn’t know the meaning of.
A Racist is anyone who thinks they are superior because of their race. Hitler was a racist, as is 99.9% of China and Japan. Although Japan has toned down some since ’45.
The word you wanted is bigot. As in bigoted Southern law enforcement. Bigoted means you hate someone because of their race.
While unfashionable to admit, both POV’s have a small amount of evidence supporting them.
If one presents that evidence one is called names. Maybe those ignorant enough to fear the evidence think that by attacking the messenger, the message will get lost.
The thing about facts is they stay facts regardless of what one feels about them.
It is a fact that 90+% of the technological advances of the human race were made by White Males, which account for less then 10% of humans. That is a fact. Calling anyone that points it out a racist doesn’t make it an invalid fact.
It is also a fact that most organized programs of mass murder were done by White males. Pointing that out doesn’t make one a bigot.
MLK was a 4th Worlder. Call it Socialist, Communist, Liberal, Progressive, Liberterian, whatever. He believed that the State comes before the Citizens.
Note that MLK’s crusade wasn’t about changing the minds of whites. It was about using the power of the state to force whites to avoid overt bigotry.
He surrendered the Strategic goal of equality for the tactical goal of harmony. That is why racial relations today are as bad as they ever were.
You can force whites and blacks to act polite in public, you cannot control what they say to each other as they sit around the table, cleaning their weapons.
When you delete this post, none of the facts will change. The Message is still the same. The Messenger is not harmed. I’m old enough to find childish behavior amusing. Yours for thinking you can change a fact by clicking a mouse button, mine for trying yet again to reason a man out of a position he wasn’t reasoned into.
Beck himself admits that he says things that seem nutty at the time. I’ve watched his TV show, on and off, for years. His claims seem nutty, but very often… guess what… they pan out. This is how he was able to expose Van Jones. He was willing to believe in the outrageous.
This is the strength of the subversives. No one really wants to believe that they really DO hate America. Slowly, ever so slowly, th epeople are coming around to realize that Obama really is a reactionary Marxist.
I find O’Reilly to be a perfect bellweather of the middle. He didn’t want to believe. He still doesn’t, but now he is beginning to rail against Obama’s policies. It won’t be much longer until he is railing against the man, himself.
They just don’t want to believe!
“At David Thomson #1: I believe the country would have been better off if MLK had not been killed.”
We would all have much better off if Martin Luther King, Jr. were still alive today and a likely marginalized figure. His assassination turned him into martyr—and gave big government liberals Lyndon B. Johnson and Hubert Humphrey the perfect excuse to pass a number of highly destructive domestic bills. Cynically, he was of much greater value as a dead martyr to the non-violent leftists than a live man of decreasing importance. It is very fair to say that the resulting legislation passed in Congress greatly harmed black Americans. They are still suffering over four decades later. It may sound a bit yucky and disquieting—but MLK inadvertently caused far more harm than good.
King was highly supportive of affirmative action remedies according to Michael Eric Dyson. There is also something that is undisputable: most of King’s followers still living today adamantly demand government racial preferences! Are they truly betraying King’s memory? I think not.
27. P T Bull:
“I still consider myself to know far more about it than you do.”
The person who wrote this . . .
“I don’t know if this is true or not, but it is clear that the civil rights movement of the 60s is the most sacred of sacred cows for the left–and King’s noble vision of equality has often been used as a mask to conceal the hate and radicalism that became the civil rights movement, and may or may not have been King’s later vision as well.”
. . . knows absolutely nothing about King or the civl rights movement. We hold many things sacred. Cows are not among them. That’s a whole different religion to which you can apply your same white middle-class American cheese sensibilities and land on an equally ignorant judgment. You’re right, you “don’t know if this is true or not” and you are “a little bit of a hypocrite.” At least you have the guts to define yourself accurately if not others.
28. blotto:
“Perhaps you can refute the charges leveled against MLK that he was indeed a socialist and communist sympathizer.”
Then I would have to refute the conservative multitudes who claim King was actually a Republican and a conservative. Which would you like refuted?
Step up or step off, boys, I’m a busy man.
Two problems with Ron Radoshs article. First, Stanley Levinson NEVER left the CPUSA. Second, Is Mr Radosh aware of the fact that cheif NAACP lawyer and later Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall was an FBI informant? And the reason he was an Informant? He was concerned about the number of folks with ties of advisors to MLK who were connected to the communist party or its syncophat, the world workers party. Ron, Glenn Beck has done extraordinary work in exposing the far left, as well as anyone else out there has. No one has exposed the COMMUNIST ties of the Obama administration and MANY Democrats in Congress. Its about time we stop being so PC about MLK. Maybe he wasnt a communist himself, but he was willing to keep them around to advance his agenda(and yes, he had one-if MLK was such a great, moral guy ask read anything about LBJs FBI wiretaps on MLK-he was screwing different women 5 times a week). Folks like Beck doing work of investigative journalists should be monitored, but the body of his work has been positive. Lets applaud the man, not criticize him in the name of PC.
“Then I would have to refute the conservative multitudes who claim King was actually a Republican and a conservative.”
I will save you the trouble. Numerous well-meaning conservatives want to believe that the Reverend King was something of a conservative. It is simply wishful thinking. Michael Eric Dyson is correct: MLK was a pro-affirmative action socialist. You are rarely right—but this time is one of those rare exceptions. Miracles occasionally do occur.
Post #60, very interesting. My experience has been that there are rarely sudden intellectual developments, and that when one looks close, one can see many intellectual antecedents to something that initially looks like it just happened.
Specifically, we see the socialism of Obama and the left, the socialism of the civil rights movement. We know that those before MLK included communists or fellow travellers, and those that followed. Are we to believe that MLK was agnostic in such matters, or the more likely notion that he was part of a mainstream of thought of which he was simply one of the more famous adherents.
As I said, I think the whole communism/marxism nexus to the civil rights movement is quite interesting, and the only challenge is finding the information. Sure not going to see it in the compilations of dewy-eyed praise written by civil rights workers that pass for histories or biographies.
I suspect that beyond the salacious couplings that caused the Hoover MLK wiretaps to be classified, there would be much of interest along these lines… Hoover hated communists, and I don’t buy Radosh’s argument that this was not a significant reason Hoover wiretapped king.
I grew up believing the public persona of King–carefully crafted by my school teachers–was complete and accurate, and when I first heard of the communist stuff, I thought it was preposterous. Later, I decided it was time to open my mind and abandon my childhood naivete in this matter.
The article is logically inconsistent. On one side, Radosh argues that King was indeed a communist. On the other, he claims that FBI slandered him when it said that King was a communist. On one side, Radosh says that it’s well known that King was a communist, and there is no need to get alarmed when his supporters come out and tell the public just that – there is nothing new about King being a communist. On the other, King was very secretive about being a communist, and he purposely differentiated between his public announcements and private conversations (this rmeinds me of PLO and Yaser Arafat).
It seems that Radosh should have actually tried to figure out how to reconcile the contradictions of his own views before coming out and slandering Beck.
P.S. Don’t forget to visit my blog:
hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com
63. Hyphenated American:
great blog hyphen
59. skeeziks:
Well, your messiah was definitely a busy man, turning tricks all those years for that slumlord. I wonder if it would have brought a tear of pride to MLK’s eye to see the messiah step up to the mic to to get his knees dirty for that slumlord?
Tell your welfare case officer that I said hi!
Ok, some internet searches. Apparently Radhosh was formerly a genuine communist, so maybe when he pronounces someone a communist or not its a more formal designation.
I think most of us are using the words more loosely to refer to folks who believe in governmental re-distribution of wealth and other marxian conceptions. Can anybody name a civil rights leader who has not advocated governmental re-distribution of wealth?
Sad to say it, but MLK called Barry Goldwater a fascist. Only a communist calls conservatives fascists.
Ron, why do you feel compelled to attack Glenn over a relatively rather minor point? He has plenty of nay sayers and enemies on the left. afterall, he has done more to promote conservative thought AND action then you ever can.
Mr Radosh,
How does Glenn’s thought “Julian Bond spoke about King’s belief in socialism to make Obama’s socialist agenda acceptable” amount to a conspiracy? It’s one man’s guess, and it is an arguable guess at that. The idea that Bond’s emphasizing King’s socialism might lend support to Obama’s agenda is hardly a stretch. Not much of “a plot” as nefarious conspiracy plot-lines go.
Further, no, one may safely bet that Beck does not “… think that King’s more or less private sentiments regarding socialism mean that he does not deserve to be honored for his courageous stand and leadership in the movement for civil rights.” Where did THAT notion spring from?
What you haven’t demonstrated is exactly how it is that Beck misunderstands King. Rather you’ve done a much better job of illustrating how Radosh misunderstands Beck.
Beck does NOT misunderstand MLK.
Just as he did not misunderstand Jones, or Obama, or….
Beck is one of the few that is actually letting us in and explaining what is going on in our country.
‘nuf said…
trolls are still here, same arguments. Just changed their names.
I agree with many of the posters here…there is no “there” there in this article.
While the author may want to pin the “conspiracy” label on Beck, he NEVER really stated that was the case (maybe it was implied…in the author’s mind) and it’s really all beside the point.
The fact is…the EFFECT is the same, at least for Bonds “isolated” comments in regards to the Obama administration, and really THAT is all Beck was alluding to in remarking on his words…
If he puts it into the larger context of what is coming from the left to defend Obama…well, it’s just one more little drop in the ocean.
And the “ocean” is what Beck is best at in revealing to his audience…
And no, it’s NOT some VAST LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY!
You’re right Blotto,MLK was a tool the same as BHO used by the liberal left in their adgenda to change our country to Socialism.
It’s unfortunate that some who decided to post here cannot do so without name calling. The vitriol sucks.
I think I’m with Hyphenated American on this one. This article is full of logical holes, and tha author seems to babble on both sides of the fence. Communism sucks. Socialism sucks. Those who advocate replacing American capitalism with any sort of redistributionist system, no matter what you call it, suck.
I was a child in the Memphis area when King was killed, and it was not pretty. He may have done some good, but he was no god, just as Obama is no god. I will worship neither. Beck, for all his flaws, owes no one an apology. This is America, he is entitled to his view as you are.
Radosh blithely dismisses an issue which has never been adequately addressed, specifically, the communal mindset of the left. Whenever anyone outside it attempts to label it as a “conspiracy”, they are always contemptuously denounced into abject silence.
This issue needs to be approached by first examining how progressives think. Progressives as a whole are steeped in the same scholastic sources, including critical thinking, postmodernism, Alinsky, Chomsky, etc. They use the same definitions, memes, and catch-phrases that inevitably affect the thinking of each one in the same manner. They have the same goals of equality of results, with an abhorrence of hierarchies and avoidance of making distinctions. They view the same Old Left Media, reporting the same set of approved facts supporting the same preformed conclusions. They use the same set of tactics supported by the same strategies, and they do all this very well because they have had decades of practice.
As a result, there now exist a myriad of progressive non-governmental organizations, including foundations, community organizers/agitators, and unions. These exist at all levels: locally, nationally, and internationally, in a type of interlocking directorate. Progressives are in places of authority at all levels of government bureaucracy. And of course we now have Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, aided and abetted by progressive judges scattered judiciously around the national circuit.
Legally, a ‘conspiracy’ is an agreement or a kind of ‘partnership’ in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member. How is what progressives do, not a conspiracy? Only in the sense that it is not illegal. Unfortunately, because progressives have control of the language and therefore the national discourse, Conservatives are hard-pressed to come up with a one-word description of this overarching, purposeful march to national suicide. “Groupthink” is not sufficient to describe the deeds that ensue.
Although legally a conspiracy need not accomplish its outcomes to be prosecuted, I think it is essential that whatever word is used, include the connotation of progressive actions spurred by progressive thinking patterns. Until a better word or phrase comes along, a number of substitutes come to mind, including “progressive communal mindset”, “progressive machinations”, or “progressive collusion”. With all this, it appears that Bond was indeed plying a familiar progressive tactic of legitimizing reality by first revealing the radicalism of a mainstream icon. Radosh is wrong… Beck has it right.
Good article. Could have been shortened to one or two paragraphs though.
Thank you for another informative and excellent piece. I am not able to take too much of Beck lately, as he is taking himself far too important lately and does not always credit people with information he uses. That’s a BIG no, no, in my book.
#66 “Can anybody name a civil rights leader who has not advocated governmental re-distribution of wealth?”
Benjamin Franklin, Cotton Mather, John Brown, John Jay, George Mason, Christopher Gadsden, David Rice, Nathaniel Greene, Alexander Hamilton, James Tallmadge, Jr., William Lloyd Garrison, and so on…
68. Will:
Actually, Will, MLK was an FBI informant set up to infiltrate the KKK and inflame their murderous bigotry to make them look bad so that the blue gums would become overconfident and start demanding equal rights, which would allow conservatives to say, “See? They deserve equal rights” while behind the scenes they were setting up another operative named JER who would further inflame white bigotry in response to the response of assassination of MLK which wasn’t an assassination at all but a suicide designed to establish martyrdom that would allow the rise of Barack Obama as the first black president so that the conservatives could claim they were first. It’s all so obvious. Tell me, what’s it like to go through life so burdened by empty?
All the attacks against this article are stupid. Since I don’t know when – a very long time – it’s been well known to people who read, um, more than a certain amount that MLK, Jr., was socialist or social democratic to some degree, but that leaves out the vast majority of the people, who don’t know much of anything about anything. It is inevitable and normal that knowledgeable people will state facts in public facts which are not known to the vast majority. So it is entirely plausible that Bond’s remark was not the beginning of a campaign, and it is also plausible that it was. At the present time there’s no way to know which it was, except that the 1st scenario is far more likely than the 2nd, since only a very tiny fraction of statements of facts which are unknown to the vast majority are the beginnings of campaigns.
Glenn Beck might have a keen nose, or he might be blind to the fact that public statements of facts which are unknown to the vast majority occur all the freaking time, or he might be counting on his audience to be blind to it.
You just have to wait…
Nothing makes me less impressed with the state of the conservative movement now than all these messages of support for Beck’s latest views on MLK – ESPECIALLY those suggesting Radosh is doing something wrong in criticizing Beck at all and only making it easier for the left to do likewise.
If God himself applied these people’s standards of purity to His only begotten Son, no one would ever be saved because the Son himself would have been damned. I put it this way for MLK’s own sake. He was a religious man whose entire conception of politics and democracy was infused with the morality instilled by his faith. That he may have consorted with communists or socialists in his movement is of no concern at all. His movement was never theirs in the slightest.
“That he may have consorted with communists or socialists in his movement is of no concern at all. His movement was never theirs in the slightest.”
The evidence clearly contradicts your assertion. Your position is senseless. It is not even slightly credible. MLIK not only consorted with socialists—he was one of them! His redistributionist economic views and hostility towards America’s struggle against the Communists in Vietnam should also not be ignored. It is very fair to argue that his movement was captured by these ideologues. The heck with what I have to say. Read his own writings. One only needs to obtain a copy of King’s “Autobiography” edited by Clayborne Carson.
Just as with many on the left, David Thomson, I believe you are so obsessed with the trees you do not see the forest. Martin Luther King said “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.” That is not the language of Karl Marx or the American Communist Party. It is the language by which King is known and through which his monumental historical impact was made. It is a language of religion and citizenship both. It is a language the left forgot a long time ago, which is why the left has never been able to come close to duplicating the civil rights movement ever since. It would be tragic, as a goldan opportunity for conservatives approaches, if they should forget this and descend into denigrating a central figure in American mythology, a real man also whose legacy is as much theirs to claim now as it ever was the left’s. If they are going to claim it, though, they better get going with something similar in the way of a meaningful appeal to America’s core values.
David Thompson is correct. And do read MLK’s writings. He may have been a pacifist but he was also a racist in his own way–just as most blacks are today.
And I think Beck’s theory may be valid. Otherwise, Bond’s statement would have
riled the left and especially the MSM for “tarnishing the saint MLK.”
Though King remained a card carring member of the Republic Party through the time of his murder his movement was not as non-violent as he might of wished. Personnel traveling by bus to support left a trail of rapes and robberies in there wake. Since as a chilld I lived in a northern city I can not imagine what must have been happening after the convoys got to the South with their hated Jim Crow regulations.
“Martin Luther King said “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Martin Luther King, Jr. said a number of commendable things. However, he also talked out of both sides of his mouth. MLK pushed a socialist line in private—while shying to do so in the public sphere. This fact is something neither Ronald Radosh nor I created out of thin air. A number of his friends and associates were witnesses. Moreover, King was a plagiarizer. He had no hesitation to steal the works of others. By the way, it was the prophet Amos who first said, “Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.” Last but not least, countless “social gospel” and “Christian liberation” thinkers reinterpreted biblical passages to comport with socialist doctrines. King simply followed a long tradition in American left-wing history.
The chief mistake Beck made was to take Bond seriously. From being a young and cogent Democrat he has grown into an old cranky fool. It’s enough to know that King was a socialist.
As for elevating King to the status of Civil Rights Saint, I think that’s mistaken as well. The civil rights tide was rising, and there were many other black and white men besides King providing leadership. I know. I was there.
I like Beck and appreciate the enormous spotlight he has wielded in an effort to shine the light of truth on what has been hidden for so long in this country. However he is like a kid with a new toy who can’t wait to show it off and bring it with him everywhere. Many of us who knew all about King for a long time were not surprised by what Bond had said, just the fact of his saying it. To extrapolate from that statement that attempts were being made to mainstream domocratic socialism to benefit Obama was naive and I hate to say it a little paranoid. It was a cringe worthy moment, truth be told.
#74 D Thomson
succinct, coherent…..nicely done…. and thx, this exchange of ideas needed that!
#76 your gambit” I come to praise caesar “…is indeed revealing, possibly insincere and probably not persuasive….the spotlight will continue,the folks have been alerted to the danger and the deceit..the obamas are “all in” for all who care to see it…so we shall all play our hands as best we can …
We must always understand that one of the tactics of Communism is to infiltrate movements of whatever sort to
further its agenda. The civil rights movement was a ripe target for infiltration. Who knows exactly what Dr.
King’s position was at that time ? I understand that his records have been sealed for fifty years from the date
of his untimely death.
One of the tenets of Communism aggression is this: “Find out what the people want, so you can bring it to
them and then come to power over them.” Just for a moment, apply that saying to Obama’s election and
ultimate socialistic consequences.
As far as Glenn Beck is concerned, I am very grateful for his fearlessness and sincerity. I don’t always agree with
everything, especially what he DOES NOT cover. He has taken a “self-taught crash course” in history, and one
cannot expect him to have covered every facet in the process. He is still in the learning phase. We must be
patient, I feel.
Balanced, nuanced, and fair, this primer on King’s leadership of the civil rights movement and belief in “some form of democratic socialism” should be remembered – and honored.
Let’s be clear: democratic socialism as practiced in Western Europe is quite different from the brutal communist dictatorships in the former Soviet Union and Mao’s China. Democratic socialism might run up record deficits and might be unsustainable, but it has many achievements and zero death camps.
Radosh’s concluding plea for Beck to acknowledge mistakes, study history harder, and demonstrate a mastery of nuance strikes just the right balance. At least, it works for me.
LOL…Ok this is really getting crazy…Is THIS your new “Sky is Falling” mantra now? “Its becoming a communist state run for the hills!!(Just vote republican…hehe)…This is so old…WMDs, terrorists, marijuana will ruin the world, Public schools will ruin the youth, it is ALL designed to fool the submissive personalitys into voting for them.
No people the sky still isn’t falling..If these extremists want to call us getting health care for all “socialism” then so be it…Republicans just don’t want to pay their taxes. Churches should have all tax exempt status removed also. Some more laws they created for themselves…