CDZ Could Martin Luther King Jr. have become President had he lived?

[JQPublic1]

I personally believe that, Had he lived, MLK would have been one of the greatest presidents US history as well as the youngest.
King had that kind of fearless determination at such a young age that most men never achieve. What man of any race would have been so bold as to champion Civil Right for minorities in the late 1950s and early 1960s...especially in the heart of Dixie where the KKK was still very active? Dr. King was that man.

That courage alone brought favor in the eyes of all who were drawn by his magnetic charisma. But if that wasn't quite enough to qualify him for the presidency, consider these attributes as well. King was a good public speaker with a maturity that belied his young age. Considering what he had accomplished before his 39th birthday is astounding given that he had few resources, little money and , in the beginning, no support from liberals OR conservatives. HIs strategy of passive resistance was ingenious and especially courageous since he had no secret service protection nor did he surround himself with armed guards. King was a rare phenomenon imbued with what can only be called fearless determination.

As minorities and women began to take note of King's charisma and daring, he was raised to legendary status. Few leaders in US history had shown such unmitigated courage and accomplished so much with so little.

Now, we see Dr. King is in class by himself. A leader that risks imprisonment, beatings and defies potential death over and over again to achieve his goals. WHAT MANNER OF MAN IS THIS? Providence, it seems, is one viable answer. King was born to do what he did...he had no choice.

Dr. King was more qualified to be president than some who won the office. But could he overcome his public image as a prominent theologian and minister? HIs enemies, including J Edgar Hoover, would certainly bring that up. Hoover had already declared King to be the most dangerous man in America and had used the infamously illegal instrument , COINTELPRO, in an attempt to discredit him. It didn't work. Had he lived, King's work would have overshadowed any of the accusations launched against him by the far right and Hoover.


Some will argue that MLK had never held public office and that would be enough to disqualify him. To that I say, let the public decide... let the millions who held him in highest esteem decide. IMHO many who have held public office were unfit to be president so that "qualifier" is bogus.

 

[konradv]

As great a man as he was, I don't believe the country would have been ready. Look how he's savaged by some now. Imagine that multiplied by 100, if he'd tried in the 70s or 80s.

 

[MisterBeale]

Obviously you haven't got a clue how the establishment works. It murdered both JFK and MLK, and it rigged the elections so that both W. and Obama would be placed in office.

What makes you think MLK would have ever been elected and gotten anything done?

On top of that, the minority community would have hated him, they don't want to hear the truth, he was a conservative.

 

[320 Years of History]

MLK was a great man; however, there's close to zero chance that, had he not been assassinated, he'd have become U.S. President. He wouldn't have because history shows us that 2008 is the earliest the U.S. was willing to elect a black President. That would have made him 79 upon his election, and 80 upon inauguration. Although Mr. Sanders is 74, and that is close to 80, it's still not 80; a lot happens to one's body between being 75 and 80, and little of it is favorable for the job of President. I just don't see the nation electing an 80 year old; I also don't see an 80 year old wanting to be President.

 

[JQPublic1]

As great a man as he was, I don't believe the country would have been ready. Look how he's savaged by some now. Imagine that multiplied by 100, if he'd tried in the 70s or 80s.

This video from 1967 provides some insight into Kings' POV on that topic. Apparently his views coincide with yours.

He was dead a year later at only 39 years of age. Had he lived, it is possible that he could have sought public office in some capacity due to his popularity.
The mayor of Atlanta, Congress, and even Civil Rights commissioner would all be enticements for the young Dr. By the time he reached 46 he would have enhanced his resume and continued to bolster his public image to the point of being even more of a viable candidate.

 

[JQPublic1]

Obviously you haven't got a clue how the establishment works. It murdered both JFK and MLK, and it rigged the elections so that both W. and Obama would be placed in office.

What makes you think MLK would have ever been elected and gotten anything done?

On top of that, the minority community would have hated him, they don't want to hear the truth, he was a conservative.

1. I don't know who or what exactly the establishment is and neither do you. We can only guess and speculate. But I doubt there was any conspiracy by your "establishment" to rig elections to put GW Bush and Obama in office.

2. My reasons for thinking MLK could have been elected are in the original op. Did you read it? It i was a longshot but the possibility was there.

3. King came from that "minority" community where nearly every decent Black person shares his Christian views. Conservatism, melded with classic liberalism, has always been a part of Black life, guided by the principles of Christianity.

 

[JoeMoma]

Had MLK not been assassinated, he would not be the civil rights hero that he is today. By being martered, his negatives were forgiven and his positives were magnified. Through the circumstances of his death and the worthiness of the cause for which he fought, he has been elevated to the status equivalent to that of a saint. It was only through dying that he could "live up to" the reputation that has been attributed to him. Had he lived, it would be very unlikely that he would have become president. Also, we have no way of knowing if he would have been a good one.

 

[2aguy]

I personally believe that, Had he lived, MLK would have been one of the greatest presidents US history as well as the youngest.
King had that kind of fearless determination at such a young age that most men never achieve. What man of any race would have been so bold as to champion Civil Right for minorities in the late 1950s and early 1960s...especially in the heart of Dixie where the KKK was still very active? Dr. King was that man.

That courage alone brought favor in the eyes of all who were drawn by his magnetic charisma. But if that wasn't quite enough to qualify him for the presidency, consider these attributes as well. King was a good public speaker with a maturity that belied his young age. Considering what he had accomplished before his 39th birthday is astounding given that he had few resources, little money and , in the beginning, no support from liberals OR conservatives. HIs strategy of passive resistance was ingenious and especially courageous since he had no secret service protection nor did he surround himself with armed guards. King was a rare phenomenon imbued with what can only be called fearless determination.

As minorities and women began to take note of King's charisma and daring, he was raised to legendary status. Few leaders in US history had shown such unmitigated courage and accomplished so much with so little.

Now, we see Dr. King is in class by himself. A leader that risks imprisonment, beatings and defies potential death over and over again to achieve his goals. WHAT MANNER OF MAN IS THIS? Providence, it seems, is one viable answer. King was born to do what he did...he had no choice.

Dr. King was more qualified to be president than some who won the office. But could he overcome his public image as a prominent theologian and minister? HIs enemies, including J Edgar Hoover, would certainly bring that up. Hoover had already declared King to be the most dangerous man in America and had used the infamously illegal instrument , COINTELPRO, in an attempt to discredit him. It didn't work. Had he lived, King's work would have overshadowed any of the accusations launched against him by the far right and Hoover.


Some will argue that MLK had never held public office and that would be enough to disqualify him. To that I say, let the public decide... let the millions who held him in highest esteem decide. IMHO many who have held public office were unfit to be president so that "qualifier" is bogus.

The democrats would not have allowed it...they would have assassinated him....er........yeah...they kinda did.....

 

[MisterBeale]

Obviously you haven't got a clue how the establishment works. It murdered both JFK and MLK, and it rigged the elections so that both W. and Obama would be placed in office.

What makes you think MLK would have ever been elected and gotten anything done?

On top of that, the minority community would have hated him, they don't want to hear the truth, he was a conservative.

1. I don't know who or what exactly the establishment is and neither do you. We can only guess and speculate. But I doubt there was any conspiracy by your "establishment" to rig elections to put GW Bush and Obama in office.

2. My reasons for thinking MLK could have been elected are in the original op. Did you read it? It i was a longshot but the possibility was there.

3. King came from that "minority" community where nearly every decent Black person shares his Christian views. Conservatism, melded with classic liberalism, has always been a part of Black life, guided by the principles of Christianity.

Well, first, scientific exit polling established that the results reported by the media were not the same as those the people cast. Call it a conspiracy, or what ever, but that is the establishment. It is a confluence of corporate owned media and the bureaucracy.

If you are truly interested, a good primer would be to watch the documentary, Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections

The elections of 2000, 2004, and 2012 all were statically anomalous. There is a reason the US establishment does not allow in international observers. It is because our elections do not determine who runs the nation. At least not statistically.






Of course I read your OP, it is the OP of one who believe the system works as they taught you it works in grammar school and in high school.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Did they teach you in school that the government had MLK killed? I'm supposing they left that part out.


Did they teach you that when the family of MLK took the government to court for his murder and sued it, they won? I bet they forgot to mention that little tid-bit too.

Court Decision: U.S. “Government Agencies” Found Guilty in Martin Luther King’s Assassination

Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis, December 1999

Court Decision: U.S. "Government Agencies" Found Guilty in Martin Luther King's Assassination


So let's review.


The establishment is the one that determines who gets to be president. The establishment will kill a public figure if they rock the boat too much. It doesn't matter who they are, or which party they belong to. Hell, they tried to do in Ronald Reagan too.

(Did you know the the elder Bush is friends with the family Reagan's would be assassin?)

And you think there is a case for MLK to be president? Yeah?


Now are you beginning to see why you aren't hearing much about the Democrats this time around? They've already decided that a Republican is going to be in the White house this time around. Or haven't you figured that out yet?

 

[oldsoul]

Obviously you haven't got a clue how the establishment works. It murdered both JFK and MLK, and it rigged the elections so that both W. and Obama would be placed in office.

What makes you think MLK would have ever been elected and gotten anything done?

On top of that, the minority community would have hated him, they don't want to hear the truth, he was a conservative.

1. I don't know who or what exactly the establishment is and neither do you. We can only guess and speculate. But I doubt there was any conspiracy by your "establishment" to rig elections to put GW Bush and Obama in office.

2. My reasons for thinking MLK could have been elected are in the original op. Did you read it? It i was a longshot but the possibility was there.

3. King came from that "minority" community where nearly every decent Black person shares his Christian views. Conservatism, melded with classic liberalism, has always been a part of Black life, guided by the principles of Christianity.

Well, first, scientific exit polling established that the results reported by the media were not the same as those the people cast. Call it a conspiracy, or what ever, but that is the establishment. It is a confluence of corporate owned media and the bureaucracy.

If you are truly interested, a good primer would be to watch the documentary, Uncounted: The New Math of American Elections

The elections of 2000, 2004, and 2012 all were statically anomalous. There is a reason the US establishment does not allow in international observers. It is because our elections do not determine who runs the nation. At least not statistically.






Of course I read your OP, it is the OP of one who believe the system works as they taught you it works in grammar school and in high school.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Did they teach you in school that the government had MLK killed? I'm supposing they left that part out.


Did they teach you that when the family of MLK took the government to court for his murder and sued it, they won? I bet they forgot to mention that little tid-bit too.

Court Decision: U.S. “Government Agencies” Found Guilty in Martin Luther King’s Assassination

Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis, December 1999

Court Decision: U.S. "Government Agencies" Found Guilty in Martin Luther King's Assassination


So let's review.


The establishment is the one that determines who gets to be president. The establishment will kill a public figure if they rock the boat too much. It doesn't matter who they are, or which party they belong to. Hell, they tried to do in Ronald Reagan too.

(Did you know the the elder Bush is friends with the family Reagan's would be assassin?)

And you think there is a case for MLK to be president? Yeah?


Now are you beginning to see why you aren't hearing much about the Democrats this time around? They've already decided that a Republican is going to be in the White house this time around. Or haven't you figured that out yet?

Interesting theories. Very interesting. Looks like you have spent a lot of time in conspiracy theory chats... Just saying. There MAY be some truth to what you say, however, the conclusions you draw from the evidence you put forth are...speculation at best... But that is a discussion for another thread.

As for MLK being elected President... Not a prayer, should he have sought it (which I doubt), what party would he have sought the nomination of? Socially, he was radically liberal, on most other things he spoke about he was radically conservative. Don't recall him talking much about foreign policy issues, other than how it affected young black men, economically his views where expressed simalarily. He could have run as an Independant I guess, but no 3rd party has won since the mid 1800's, when Lincoln did, and that was because the GOP was pretty much dominate over the Whigs already.

 

[JQPublic1]

Had MLK not been assassinated, he would not be the civil rights hero that he is today. By being martered, his negatives were forgiven and his positives were magnified. Through the circumstances of his death and the worthiness of the cause for which he fought, he has been elevated to the status equivalent to that of a saint. It was only through dying that he could "live up to" the reputation that has been attributed to him. Had he lived, it would be very unlikely that he would have become president. Also, we have no way of knowing if he would have been a good one.

I saw something in Dr. King that not even Ronald Reagan possessed. This man was a born leader with more courage and fire in him than anyone I have known in my lifetime.
Considering the oratory and decision making gifts bestowed upon him, chances are he would have applied them equally well in the White house. His religiosity, though, might be seen by some as a weakness. Would he violate the first Commandment by using the military to kill others? You might be surprised to hear that I think so. The Holy Book is rife with examples of Hebrew and Jewish warriors who fought in wars and killed people. King, as a student of Scripture,surely was aware of that and likely mulled over how he could apply it if he ever had to. Although he was a disenfranchised American, King thought of himself as an American enough to want to fight for that right to belong.

You say that it would have been unlikely that he could become president? Was that as unlikely as Obama's rise to the presidency? No one saw that coming either.
By making such a statement, you are saying that those you have tagged as "liberal thinkers" did not exist during the Civil Right's era. You are implying that social conservatism dominated most political thought of the day regardless of party affiliation. Please expound on that!

 

[baileyn45]

MLK was a great man; however, there's close to zero chance that, had he not been assassinated, he'd have become U.S. President. He wouldn't have because history shows us that 2008 is the earliest the U.S. was willing to elect a black President. That would have made him 79 upon his election, and 80 upon inauguration. Although Mr. Sanders is 74, and that is close to 80, it's still not 80; a lot happens to one's body between being 75 and 80, and little of it is favorable for the job of President. I just don't see the nation electing an 80 year old; I also don't see an 80 year old wanting to be President.

I disagree on the 2008 point. I think had Colin Powell run in 2000 he'd have won easily with huge repub support.

 

[JQPublic1]

REF POST #5....

THE VIDEO IS NOT THE ONE I ORIGINALLY POSTED...HOW DID THAT SWITCH OCCUR? THE FARCE VIDEO POSTED BY MR BEALE HAS NOW REPLACED THE SERIOUS ONE POSTED BY ME.

 

[JQPublic1]

REF POST #5....

THE VIDEO IS NOT THE ONE I ORIGINALLY POSTED...HOW DID THAT SWITCH OCCUR? THE FARCE VIDEO POSTED BY MR BEALE HAS NOW REPLACED THE SERIOUS ONE POSTED BY ME.

NOW THE TWO VIDEOS ARE CREDITED TO THEIR PROPER PLACES...SOME MOD IS PLAYING GAMES.... I THINK I KNOW WHO......

 

[oldsoul]

You say that it would have been unlikely that he could become president? Was that as unlikely as Obama's rise to the presidency? No one saw that coming either.
By making such a statement, you are saying that those you have tagged as "liberal thinkers" did not exist during the Civil Right's era. You are implying that social conservatism dominated most political thought of the day regardless of party affiliation. Please expound on that!

Who are you directing this too? It seems as though it would not be Joe, yet I do not see where you have directed it to anyone else.

 

[oldsoul]

I saw something in Dr. King that not even Ronald Reagan possessed. This man was a born leader with more courage and fire in him than anyone I have known in my lifetime.
Considering the oratory and decision making gifts bestowed upon him, chances are he would have applied them equally well in the White house.

I agree with these statements. However, leading people who agree with you and leading a country are two completly different things. I beleive that MLK was such a great figure in our history because of his bold, often polarizing stances. These attributes, while good for someone who wants to affect change, are detrimental to someone who is trying to lead a citizentry as diverse as the U.S.A. As far as his oratory skills, they may have helped him gain the office, but they are of little use in governing (exibit A: Obama is a very good orator, yet is, at best, a divisive leader). To the decision making skills, he had a wisdom about him to listen to and consider all views from people far more knowledgable than he, and make great decisions based on that counsel. An attribute most, if not all, leaders (no matter what the level) have and use well.

 

[JQPublic1]

I saw something in Dr. King that not even Ronald Reagan possessed. This man was a born leader with more courage and fire in him than anyone I have known in my lifetime.
Considering the oratory and decision making gifts bestowed upon him, chances are he would have applied them equally well in the White house.

I agree with these statements. However, leading people who agree with you and leading a country are two completly different things. I beleive that MLK was such a great figure in our history because of his bold, often polarizing stances. These attributes, while good for someone who wants to affect change, are detrimental to someone who is trying to lead a citizentry as diverse as the U.S.A. As far as his oratory skills, they may have helped him gain the office, but they are of little use in governing (exibit A: Obama is a very good orator, yet is, at best, a divisive leader). To the decision making skills, he had a wisdom about him to listen to and consider all views from people far more knowledgable than he, and make great decisions based on that counsel. An attribute most, if not all, leaders (no matter what the level) have and use well.

I wouldn't worry about leading people who disagree with me because if I ever ascend to the presidency it will be at the behest of people who DO agree with me. That would also apply to Dr.King. King would have had to spell out his agenda during his campaign. Why run at all if you don't feel you can offer something that ALL Americans can benefit from; but, especially those who voted you into office. You use the term "polarizing" to define King's focus on civil liberties. I am not sure that is the correct term .
If there was polarization, it was due to the actions and behaviors of those who resisted the 1954 decision of the Warren Court...you know... the Supreme Court decision that ended segregation. King didn't influence that decision he just wanted to make sure it was carried out since the government failed to do so.

Diversity is a challenge to good leadership but I think King was just as up to the task as any of the Black NCOs and officers who trained and led a diverse body of troops in the Military. Dr. King's sharp mind and ability to learn quickly would have put any concerns about his qualifications to lead a diverse USA to rest. BTW, I also disagree with your assessment of Obama as being a divisive leader. You and I both know that the "divisiveness" emanates from one side...the right side. It started even before Obama's inauguration and was fed by Sean Hannity and other right wing talking heads like Limbaugh who coined the catch phrase..."we WANT him to fail!" In those states where RW elements controlled political outcomes the backlash manifested in congressional losses for democrats but they had little effect on Obama's 2nd presidential election. Why not? Because the American pubic isn't as stupid as you might think they are. They kept Obama but changed Congress to keep some sort of balance. So it appears that the"divisiveness" you project onto Obama, or, any perceived campaign of King, is a vacuous assumption.


I agree that King had a wisdom about him to listen to and consider all views from people far more knowledgable than he, and make great decisions based on that counsel.
I think the same can be said of Obama. That virtue would also have served King as president by nullifying any polarizing effect he might trigger in those who just hate people who are different. His speeches would be carefully tailored to avoid domestic reactions.

 

[JQPublic1]

I personally believe that, Had he lived, MLK would have been one of the greatest presidents US history as well as the youngest.
King had that kind of fearless determination at such a young age that most men never achieve. What man of any race would have been so bold as to champion Civil Right for minorities in the late 1950s and early 1960s...especially in the heart of Dixie where the KKK was still very active? Dr. King was that man.

That courage alone brought favor in the eyes of all who were drawn by his magnetic charisma. But if that wasn't quite enough to qualify him for the presidency, consider these attributes as well. King was a good public speaker with a maturity that belied his young age. Considering what he had accomplished before his 39th birthday is astounding given that he had few resources, little money and , in the beginning, no support from liberals OR conservatives. HIs strategy of passive resistance was ingenious and especially courageous since he had no secret service protection nor did he surround himself with armed guards. King was a rare phenomenon imbued with what can only be called fearless determination.

As minorities and women began to take note of King's charisma and daring, he was raised to legendary status. Few leaders in US history had shown such unmitigated courage and accomplished so much with so little.

Now, we see Dr. King is in class by himself. A leader that risks imprisonment, beatings and defies potential death over and over again to achieve his goals. WHAT MANNER OF MAN IS THIS? Providence, it seems, is one viable answer. King was born to do what he did...he had no choice.

Dr. King was more qualified to be president than some who won the office. But could he overcome his public image as a prominent theologian and minister? HIs enemies, including J Edgar Hoover, would certainly bring that up. Hoover had already declared King to be the most dangerous man in America and had used the infamously illegal instrument , COINTELPRO, in an attempt to discredit him. It didn't work. Had he lived, King's work would have overshadowed any of the accusations launched against him by the far right and Hoover.


Some will argue that MLK had never held public office and that would be enough to disqualify him. To that I say, let the public decide... let the millions who held him in highest esteem decide. IMHO many who have held public office were unfit to be president so that "qualifier" is bogus.

The democrats would not have allowed it...they would have assassinated him....er........yeah...they kinda did.....

What makes you think it was "democrats" that killed MLK? Are you inferring that the modern republican citizens of the South were once democrats?

 

[JQPublic1]

You say that it would have been unlikely that he could become president? Was that as unlikely as Obama's rise to the presidency? No one saw that coming either.
By making such a statement, you are saying that those you have tagged as "liberal thinkers" did not exist during the Civil Right's era. You are implying that social conservatism dominated most political thought of the day regardless of party affiliation. Please expound on that!

Who are you directing this too? It seems as though it would not be Joe, yet I do not see where you have directed it to anyone else.

Ref post #7:

Had he lived, it would be very unlikely that he would have become president. Also, we have no way of knowing if he would have been a good one.

Please read the posts and stop making me work so hard.... I don't need the extra work of repeating myself.

 

[320 Years of History]

MLK was a great man; however, there's close to zero chance that, had he not been assassinated, he'd have become U.S. President. He wouldn't have because history shows us that 2008 is the earliest the U.S. was willing to elect a black President. That would have made him 79 upon his election, and 80 upon inauguration. Although Mr. Sanders is 74, and that is close to 80, it's still not 80; a lot happens to one's body between being 75 and 80, and little of it is favorable for the job of President. I just don't see the nation electing an 80 year old; I also don't see an 80 year old wanting to be President.

I disagree on the 2008 point. I think had Colin Powell run in 2000 he'd have won easily with huge repub support.

Okay...so now you want to speculate on at least three things:

• What would have happened if Colin Powell ran for President,
• Whether MLK, Jr. could have been elected President, and
• Whether the American people were willing to elect a black (minority) person as President prior to 2008.

I'm fine with your believing that one or all three of those things -- the optimism, perhaps egalitarianism too, underlying your belief is laudable -- could have happened, but as goes the willingness of the electorate to put a minority in office in 2000, we have only history telling us when they actually were.

I have to ask this: have you considered whether seeing Colin Powell as a viable option in 2000 contributed to the nation's ability to see Mr. Obama as one in 2008? Might it be that Mr. Powell's being well liked and not running opened a door, albeit a door he may not himself been able to step through? Such a pattern -- one or several black Americans paving a way -- is hardly uncommon in the history of America or black Americans.

I'm not saying or suggesting that it was implausible for Colin Powell to have been elected. I recognize that, in stark contrast with, say, Shirley Chisholm or Jesse Jackson's runs for President, it was plausible for him to have been. I'm less certain about the probability of his having won the Presidential election of 2000.