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

[oldsoul]

RESPONSE TO OLDSCHOOL PT1

RED:
Once elected to the Presidentcy one is the leader of the entire country, not just those who aree with you. Therefore, if you ignore (AKA don't worry about), those who disagree you are in effect alienating those people. Not a sign of a good leader.

My opinion remains unchanged. As I said, when a person chooses to run for president, it is a long arduous journey where everything he/she stands for is scrutinized and made public. The campaign is where he/she outlines an agenda and opens it up to public scrutiny. The majority of Voters who agree with the candidate's platform are going to put that candidate in office. Those who disagree will take another path.either to avoid voting or to support another candidate.

The president elect then, is obliged to live up to campaign promises he made to those who put him in office. What special consideration would he owe those who worked against him and who tried to undermine his ascension to the presidency? BTW a candidate takes an oath of party allegiance once he declares his candidacy under the auspices of either major party.


Still, the president is indeed the president for all of us. That fact is never more evident than when a state of emergency occurs. The president usually jets in to surveil the damage and assess the costs before tapping resources to stabilize the stricken communities. Katrina was one such emergency under Bush; and, Obama has had several as well, to include the one in New Jersey. When Texas had flooding and tornados, Obama didn't hesitate to help the reddest of red states.

We shall agree to disagree then.

 

[oldsoul]

OLDSCHOOL PT 2

BLUE:
Polarization defined by vocabulary.com: "Outside science, polarization usually refers to how people think, especially when two views emerge that drive people apart, kind of like two opposing magnets."
So, yes MLK was a polarizing figure, not exclusively by his doing, but polarizing just the same. This is not meant as a negative against him, merely has a historical fact.

Political polarization as defined by the PEW research center:
Political polarization – the vast and growing gap between liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats – is a defining feature of American politics today, and one the Pew Research Center has documented for many years.

Judging by this chart, it appears to me that political polarization has been part of the political scene for sometime. That polarization has risen dramatically over the last decade. Is it due to Obama? Perhaps a closer look is needed.... here goes.


First I think we need to understand one pertinent discovery about the average American uncovered in this research.:

1These sentiments are not shared by all – or even most – Americans. The majority do not have uniformly conservative or liberal views. Most do not see either party as a threat to the nation. And more believe their representatives in government should meet halfway to resolve contentious disputes rather than hold out for more of what they want.

Reading the above findings tells me that polarization is not really a factor to MOST Americans at all. 27% of democrats and 36% of repubicans shown in the above chart do NOT a majority make.

At best this is a strawman. Nuff said.

 

[oldsoul]

I disagree, politely. If he did indeed have such inclinations, they ended during the Civil Rights movement. MLK was aware that northern and western Republicans were good on civil rights but still had more hold outs in Congress than the Dems percentage wise. The Republicans to a man in Congress opposed CR.

And yet they passed it. Hummmm

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

He wouldn't have because history shows us that 2008 is the earliest the U.S. was willing to elect a black President.

History doesn't show that at all. How many credible black candidates even ran for president prior to Obama? The only black presidential candidates I can even think of before that were Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Carol Mosely-Braun, none of which were palatable candidates for the White House for reasons beyond race.

 

[rightwinger]

The more important question is if MLK would have been nominated this year for an Oscar.

I have a dream....

 

[JakeStarkey]

JQPublic, I see the problem was mine. I did not proof carefully. Here is the corrected version.

I disagree, politely. If he did indeed have such inclinations, they ended during the Civil Rights movement. MLK was aware that northern and western Republicans were good on civil rights but still had more North and West hold outs in Congress than the North and Western Dems percentage wise. The Southern Republicans to a man in Congress opposed CR. The Dems did only a bit better in the South.

 

[jwoodie]

Could Bernie Sanders become President? (Both he and MLK are/were socialists.)

I am going to put you on the spot here . Did you know that MLK was a republican? How do you reconcile that with your "socialist" comment?

Was he a conservative socialist?

From Wiki:

Although King never publicly supported a political party or candidate for president, in a letter to a civil rights supporter in October 1956 he said that he was undecided as to whether he would vote for Adlai Stevenson or Dwight Eisenhower, but that "In the past I always voted the Democratic ticket."[63] In his autobiography, King says that in 1960 he privately voted for Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy: "I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one." King adds that he likely would have made an exception to his non-endorsement policy for a second Kennedy term, saying "Had President Kennedy lived, I would probably have endorsed him in 1964."[64] In 1964, King urged his supporters "and all people of goodwill" to vote against Republican Senator Barry Goldwater for president, saying that his election "would be a tragedy, and certainly suicidal almost, for the nation and the world."[65] King supported the ideals of democratic socialism, although he was reluctant to speak directly of this support due to the anti-communist sentiment being projected throughout America at the time, and the association of socialism with communism. King believed that capitalism could not adequately provide the basic necessities of many American people, particularly the African American community.

 

[JQPublic1]

JQPublic, I see the problem was mine. I did not proof carefully. Here is the corrected version.

I disagree, politely. If he did indeed have such inclinations, they ended during the Civil Rights movement. MLK was aware that northern and western Republicans were good on civil rights but still had more North and West hold outs in Congress than the North and Western Dems percentage wise. The Southern Republicans to a man in Congress opposed CR. The Dems did only a bit better in the South.

I would have preferred that you "respectfully" disagree but I suppose "politely" is still good enough.

After a careful analysis of data pertaining to this issue I am now convinced that MLK was non partisan. Even some of his relatives are split on his political leanings. Alveda King, his niece ,is adamant about MLK being a republican that carried that tradition forward from several generations of his immediate patrilineal lineage. One of his sons ,however, disputed that claim and forced me to research deeper. I did and I am now inclined to agree with you...I do admit that some of the data I have digested does leave me with a lingering feeling that I have overlooked some vital nexus that links King to the political ideals his father had... when many Blacks were republicans. Thanks ...

 

[JQPublic1]

Could Bernie Sanders become President? (Both he and MLK are/were socialists.)

I am going to put you on the spot here . Did you know that MLK was a republican? How do you reconcile that with your "socialist" comment?

Was he a conservative socialist?

From Wiki:

Although King never publicly supported a political party or candidate for president, in a letter to a civil rights supporter in October 1956 he said that he was undecided as to whether he would vote for Adlai Stevenson or Dwight Eisenhower, but that "In the past I always voted the Democratic ticket."[63] In his autobiography, King says that in 1960 he privately voted for Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy: "I felt that Kennedy would make the best president. I never came out with an endorsement. My father did, but I never made one." King adds that he likely would have made an exception to his non-endorsement policy for a second Kennedy term, saying "Had President Kennedy lived, I would probably have endorsed him in 1964."[64] In 1964, King urged his supporters "and all people of goodwill" to vote against Republican Senator Barry Goldwater for president, saying that his election "would be a tragedy, and certainly suicidal almost, for the nation and the world."[65] King supported the ideals of democratic socialism, although he was reluctant to speak directly of this support due to the anti-communist sentiment being projected throughout America at the time, and the association of socialism with communism. King believed that capitalism could not adequately provide the basic necessities of many American people, particularly the African American community.

See post #48... I think that speaks to your premise. Thanks...

 

[D Truth]

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.

Probably...

He did pay pimps to deliver white, yes specifically white, wimmenz... so he could beat the shit out of them. But hey, black men statistically love beating the shit out of women, especially white women.... So this is normal. So yeah, since American media is clearly promoting the negro as the ultimate male, it would not be surprising if the white-wimmenz beating super-negro was "elected". However, in the 60's... the government did not have the control they have now... prolly would have worked out the same (maybe not so well scripted).

 

[JakeStarkey]

MLK Jr was pro civil rights, anti Vietnam war, for the liberal corporate state.

He clearly identified more with the Dems and the Pubs.

 

[JQPublic1]

MLK Jr was pro civil rights, anti Vietnam war, for the liberal corporate state.

He clearly identified more with the Dems and the Pubs.

Did you mean "He clearly identified more with Dems than the Pubs?"

Your original statement includes the conjunction "and" suggesting that you agree with me that king was non partisan.

Actually, I am just messing with ya a bit. When you said MLK was pro civil rights, anti-Vietnam war, and was for the liberal corporate state. I understood your inference. Your list is associated with things modern republicans typically would be for. That means King would not be considered a modern conservative republican.

But, republicans on the whole, during King's lifetime were not as "conservative" as those claiming to be conservatives are today. Liberalism was a philosophical mainstay of the original republicans and democrats were defined by their social conservative views.
Democratic and Republican Ideologies Undergo Dramatic Role Reversal


King could be considered the father of the Civil rights movement but his chief antagonists then were conservative southern democrats. The video I submitted a few posts ago shows King suggesting white liberals were the key to a future "Negro" presidency. I think we can both agree that liberalism was rarely found in the democrat run south when King lived. So what liberals could he have been referring to? The political transition of both parties mentioned in my link above was an ongoing phenomenon that further clouds the issue of MLK's political inclinations. It is not "clear" at all.


I remember when King publicly encouraged young black men to burn their draft cards. Is that what you took as being anti-Vietnam War?
Being against any war would have been consistent with MLK's Christian ethics as a minister. He was against the Vietnam war but his views yielded a bizarre twist. According to Wiki, Liberals were alienated by King's anti-Vietnam stance.

"King expanded his focus to include poverty and speak against the Vietnam War, alienating many of his liberal allies with a 1967 speech titled "Beyond Vietnam".
Martin Luther King, Jr. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In those days, it is hard to tell just ho was a social liberal or social conservative.
The transition was gaining momentum and political alignments were nebulous at best back then.

MLK was for The liberal corporate state?

That is a new one for me... does that have anything to do with Communist ideology or is it just an offshoot of what heaven would be like?


Corporate liberalism is a thesis in US historiography where the corporate elite become "both the chief beneficiaries of and the chief lobbyists for the supposedly anti-business regulations".[1] The idea is that both owners of corporations as well as high up government officials came together to become the class of elites. The elite class then conspires (or, less maliciously: the system motivates the elite) to keep power away from the low or middle class. Presumably, to avoid the risk of revolution from the poor and powerless, and to avoid the realization of class conflict, the elite have the working class pick sides in a mock conflict between business and state.[1][2] Corporate liberalism's principal text is James Weinstein's The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State.
Corporate liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please make the connection between MLK and the above definition. The floor is yours.
I am an eager student awaiting your response.

 

[JQPublic1]

I said the north and west split vs the south.

Look at it by party.

The Dems guided the Pubs to a victory of geography and culture.

I guess the link I provided isn't good enough, eh? If post #36 doesn't grab you nothing will. The list clearly shows how the bill was passed and by which percentage each of party passage it in both chambers.l

My point is that the Dems guided the Pubs to victory, and the Dems by percentage in the north and west had a higher % for the bills than the Pubs in the same regions.

Why do you have a problem with that fact? You also ignore the fact the GOP Pubs voted against the bills in the House and the Senate unanimously.

These facts are clearly taught in HS and higher education.

Math is clearly taught in HS and higher education too, but you ignore the figures I posted in post #35 as if they don't exist. Your "facts" have nothing to do with the eventual outcome...the Bill was passed in a bi-partisan blitz.

Now, to stay focused on the topic. I don't see any evidence that King was influenced by this at all to support one party over the other. What have you got?...come on with it! Refer back to the video in post $33 if you are still confused. King "clearly" pointed to Republican support for Civil Rights in that video. End of story!

 

[JakeStarkey]

JQ, thank you for catching that. My allergies are tearing me up (literally and figuratively).

Your long response is immaterial. MLK Jr was not a covert Republican. The evidence strongly indicates he leaned toward the Dems, particularly after the 1958.

I said the bill was passed by northern and western Dems and Pubs. That is bi-partisan.

It was opposed by southern Dems and Pubs.

What do you fail to get? MLK leaned left not right. Your confirmation bias manipulates the evidence as you wish it to be. All the evidence invalidates your conclusion.

 

[JQPublic1]

JQ, thank you for catching that. My allergies are tearing me up (literally and figuratively).

Your long response is immaterial. MLK Jr was not a covert Republican. The evidence strongly indicates he leaned toward the Dems, particularly after the 1958.

I said the bill was passed by northern and western Dems and Pubs. That is bi-partisan.

It was opposed by southern Dems and Pubs.

What do you fail to get? MLK leaned left not right. Your confirmation bias manipulates the evidence as you wish it to be. All the evidence invalidates your conclusion.

You seem to be allergic to reality as well See how you conjured up the notion that my "long" post was an allusion to MLK's "covert" republicanism?
That is especially noteworthy considering I have expressed that I believe he was non partisan. Your error is that you see the republican party of today as an extension of what it was during MLK's lifetime. To YOU , the GOP has always been a bastion of conservatism!... That is a misconception on YOUR part.
The Republican Party was liberal from the onset and gradually degraded into
an anathema of itself. Since it is unclear at what point of transition the democratic party and the GOP had attained in King's day, saying he leaned "left" and therefore was a democrat is nonsense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JQ, cognitive dissonance trips you up.

Believe as you wish, but if you try it in a class on an actual exam, you would fail.

 

[JQPublic1]

Your long response is immaterial

My long post addressed three variables you posited as evidence of MLK's political leanings. I guess you really did not want a response.

Bottom line: After careful consideration I see now that King really had no political loyalty to either party. His agenda was not a political one but he used politicians to suit his purpose. King's Christian ethic guided him in his quest for civil rights for Blacks. That earned him the label of " liberal" from his opposition. Many republicans were liberal then and many democrats were conservatives. If King was a liberal so was Jesus Christ, not because either identified themselves as such, but because lesser men have placed the label on them.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

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.

Could Malcolm X? Black Lives Matter would prefer Malcolm X to Martin Luther King.

 

[JQPublic1]

JQ, cognitive dissonance trips you up.

Believe as you wish, but if you try in a class on an actual exam, you would fail.

What cognitive dissonance? give me an example of my cognitive dissonance.
It is easy to accuse someone of something but proving it is tougher.I don't think you are up to the task!

BTW, I have two degrees... I did pretty well in my classes on ALL subjects.

 

[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.

Could Malcolm X? Black Lives Matter would prefer Malcolm X to Martin Luther King.

Malcolm X was a Muslim... BLM people are more likely to be Christians. I am not saying that Malcolm would not have corralled a significant portion of the Black vote at the time but many would have balked at the prospect. By the time he was assassinated, Malcolm had publicly shared his epiphany which came about during a pilgrimage to the Holy lands. The resulting personal transformation may have gained favor with the White world when Malcolm revealed he no longer hated White people; but, I doubt that would have sufficed to pave the way to a presidential candidacy.