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

[JoeMoma]

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.

Part of why Obama became president was timing. He ran at a time in which the majority of the voters were excited about voting for a black man.
Could MLK have become president? Of course he could have. But since he was murdered, all we can do us speculate about what might have been.

 

[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.

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.

Sorry for asking for clarification, won't happen again. Wow.

 

[Staidhup]

I do not believe political aspirations would have served his purpose nor been acceptable within his religious beliefs, in short he would have had to compromise who he was and his sole.

 

[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.

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.

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.

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.

PURPLE:
First of all, this sounds to me like progressive talking points at work trying to discredit those who disagree.

Second, Limbaugh needs no defence by me, but I will attempt to put his comment into perspective for you. He was refering to Obama's stated political agenda. He NEVER said he wanted President Obama to fail as the leader of our country. He DID say that he hoped that MR OBAMA (the man) would fail to impliment any of his agenda. So, where is the idvisiveness in that? One, or even all, Political commentators making a statement about thier hopes for the success of an agenda no more makes for divisive ness than me saying that I beleive Obama is the worst President in my adult life.

Third, I do not beleive that the American voting public is stupid. I do beleive that many where swayed by a very charismatic, well spoken charlatan of a man.

Fourth, Thanks for the insult. I do like being acknowledged for getting in the skin of a progressive.

Note: A "progressive", in the context of my post, is one who wishes to "steer" a group (such as a nation) in a particular direction that they would not otherwise wish do go, in a manner that uses small, seeminly unimportant, consesions by one group, while expecting little or no comprimise by another. In case there was any question as to my meaning.

 

[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.

Sorry for asking for clarification, won't happen again. Wow.

Clarification is ONE thing but when you just don't read a post and ask questions that have already been answered, that is entirely another.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

 

[JQPublic1]

POSTS 26 and 27 are responses to OLDSOUL NOT OLDSCHOOL

I guess I can't be perfect ALL the time...sorry!

 

[320 Years of History]

....

Third, I do not beleive that the American voting public is stupid. I do beleive that many where swayed by a very charismatic, well spoken charlatan of a man.
...

Good points all of them, except the one above, IMO. I do not think all or necessarily most of the American electorate is stupid, but I think enough of them are that it disturbs me that they have a vote. Mind you, I don't mind that smart people who disagree with me to greater or lesser degrees have a vote, for I realize the world is mostly "grey." The stupid folks in my mind are the one's who see everything as black or white, that is, the "binary" folks.

 

[Cassandro]

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

 

[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?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Did you know you are wrong? MLK's dad was a Republican. MLK Jr specifically did not mention any party affiliation. His politics clearly were in line with the liberal and centrists wings of the Democratic Party.

MLK Jr could never have become President of the US in the world in which we all grew up.

 

[JQPublic1]

]

Did you know you are wrong? MLK's dad was a Republican. MLK Jr specifically did not mention any party affiliation. His politics clearly were in line with the liberal and centrists wings of the Democratic Party.

MLK Jr could never have become President of the US in the world in which we all grew up.

This video seems to suggest King had a favorable view of the Republican Party as opposed to the democratic party of his era. I say that with careful consideration and knowledge that both parties have undergone a political metamorphosis since King made that speech.

I would venture to say that he likely voted republican if he voted at all. Like millions of Americans, King's vote or public endorsement may not have necessarily defined him as being a republican but it does give me license to make that assumption.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No.

Any other questions?

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

Now I get to say "politely" you are wrong. Here is the tally of congressional yays and nays on the Civil Rights bill!.
By party[edit]

The original House version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
• Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[21]

• Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[20]

• Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
• Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]

• Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
• Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[rightwinger]

I doubt it

Dr King was too affiliated with black issues and was viewed as a black only leader". I doubt if he could have built a successful coalition

 

[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

 

[Indeependent]

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.