Once again, I am happy to post a message from Dr Frances Rice, Director of the National Black Republican Association.
URGENT! LET'S RAIN ON OBAMA'S CONVENTION PARADE!
This is a campaign like no other. With your help, we will put up 50 - that's right - 50 "Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican" billboards all over the City of Denver, while the Democratic Party is having their national convention there.
What a way to upset the "coronation" of the Democratic Party's "messianic" presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama. Arrogant is the word for Obama, a far left-winger, who is attempting to assume the mantle of Dr. King by giving his political acceptance speech on the anniversary of Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" inspirational civil rights speech. History shows that Dr. King was a minister who embraced the traditional values that made our country great. Obama has the most liberal voting record in the US Senate. Obama is no MLK.
Join the fun. Donate now to our Denver billboard campaign and help make history. No amount is too small. Click here to donate to the NBRA's Denver billboard campaign. Or to donate to the NBRA via PayPal click here.
Below is one of our MLK Was A Republican billboards. It is locaced in Sarasota County, Florida, along US-41 near Venice, FL.
Click here to help us put up 50 MLK Was A Republican billboards
Fousesquawk comment:
My apologies that I am not proficient enough to set up the clicks on my website. I would encourage each of you, however, to go to the NBRA website and take it from there. Black conservatives are a special segment of our population whose voices need to be heard.
PS: Was Martin Luther King a Republican? An intriguing question. Think before you jump to an answer.
Was MLK a Republican?
ReplyDeleteMy answer: Who cares?
Seriously, I think that it's silly one way or another. If Obama is trying to assume the legacy of MLK, then we need to compare what he says and does to what MLK says and does. I think that his critics could go a lot further with that. But posting big billboards that say that MLK was a Republican is lame.
When you start talking about people from a generation or two back and apply present-day labels to them, it's just a distraction from the real issues. I mean, what's the point? People should vote Republican because MLK did? Should people own slaves because Jefferson did? (An extreme example, but the logic is the same.)
First problem with the assertion that MLK was a Republican: did it mean the same thing back then that it does today to be a Republican? Almost certainly not. The "civil rights era" was the turning point where the two major parties practically switched ideologies with one another. Before, and partly during MLK, the Republican party had no qualms about interfering in "states' issues." The Democrats were the party of "old-fashioned" and "conservative" values, if you will, or in other words the defenders of segregation. Forty years after MLK's death and the Republicans champion "traditional values" and the Democrats fight for "progressive causes." (And before you say, "Well today such and such Democrat is a racist or used to be in the KKK!" let me just admit that there are racist idiots in both parties, but by and large those who hold such views tend to gravitate more to the conservative end of the political spectrum.) This is not to say that MLK was what would be classified today as a Democrat. He was actually much more radical and leftist than that, which brings me to my next point.
ReplyDeleteSecond problem: the historical record. Look at MLK's later speeches. He was highly critical of capitalism. That wasn't very "Republican" of him. He even privately confessed at times to supporting the idea of democratic socialism. He was also very critical of the Vietnam war.
Furthermore, none of his immediate family were/are Republicans after his death, as far as I'm aware. That seems odd that none of those closest to him shared his alleged views.
Lastly, it's sort of disrespectful and in bad taste to so blatantly misrepresent the views of such a historical and important figure in order to bring publicity to a group that has little in common with the dead man they are exploiting. As I understand it, there were some within the black Republican group that felt the same way and there was in-fighting with some members leaving.
The question seems to arouse hot reactions, but no clear answer that I have seen. Apparantly MLK tried to at least appear non-partisan though he supposedly voted for JFK and LBJ.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that in his era, the difference between the two parties was not as wide as it is today. There were the so-called Dixiecrats who fought the civil rights legislation. LBJ could not have passed the Civil Rights Bill without the support of the Republican Party.
We can only speculate where MLK would stand today had he not been assassinated. As it is, we have to take him at his words when he lived. His famous line was that he dreamed of the day when his children would be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin. That seems to be closer to the present-day conservative position than the liberal position of affirmative action.
Of course, it is hard to say how MLK would have evolved over the years.
Ref: Bryan said...
ReplyDelete"Furthermore, none of his immediate family were/are Republicans after his death,..."
Apparently you never checked with his daughter!
I wonder what Arminius would have thought about a 13% across-the-board flat tax.
ReplyDeleteHmmm...
Ultimately, using the image of a respected figure from the past to further a cause (no matter what that cause might be) is little more than propaganda. I'll have to remember this one when I do my propaganda unit with my freshmen this year. (The technique being used is called "transfer".)
Sorry Gary, but you're still completely ignoring King's later speeches. The man's positions were not mysteries. He was extremely critical of capitalism. He was extremely critical of war. Like I said earlier, not very conservative/"Republican" positions of him to take.
ReplyDeleteYou're cherry-picking ONE line from ONE speech he gave and trying to make it fit into your own ideology. Well, basically the rest of the historical record is against yours and the NBRA's argument
It is a historical fact that during the 60s and 70s, the Dixiecrats all migrated to the Republican party.
I also feel these billboards are insulting to the intelligence of black voters. The implication is that blacks should vote Republican simply because King was supposedly a Republican. Here is a good article I found on the matter:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/18/AR2006101801754.html
Again, the historical record is there for us to examine. There is no mystery or "I guess we'll never know for sure," to whether or not King was a Republican. He was not.
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteI don't think I am ignoring anything. I may not have his later speeches at my fingertips, but I do remember the man (I was 23 when he died). King did take up the anti-Viet nam cause, but that was not a down the line republican/democrat issue since presidents of both parties led us in that one.
I am not personally trying to make the case for MLK being a Republican because I never really knew myself. (nor am I a republican) My point in putting up the NBRA message is that I have great admiration for black conseratives and will support them however I can. Whether or not MLK actually belonged to any party is not the main issue in my view. I think the main point that the NBRA is trying to convey is that blacks have been ill-served by the Democratic Party, which does have a not-so-proud past in racial areas and now panders to blacks (and other minorities) by treating them as folks who can't make it in life without the Democratic Party holding their hand (my view).In the case of blacks, it's a case of "keeping them on the plantation" if you will.
A far better message I think would be that, notwithstanding America's racist past,which I am old enough to remember, this country has made greater strides in the past 40 years than any other nation could, and anyone can make it in this society based on their own efforts. Telling people that they can't does them a disservice because it then tends to become a self-fulfilling prophesy.
You may disagree, but that is what I believe.
Lance,
ReplyDeleteThat one about Arminius and the flat tax was way over my head. Who the hell was he?
I just read this and laughed out loud with the first few sentences. I think it's a great idea. How do I donate to the billboard fund?
ReplyDeleteGeez, Gary - what, are you afraid of a little Google search on Arminius? (A brief summary - A Germanic chieftan who was trained by the Romans and later used their own tactics against them. He's considered to be Germany's first national hero.)
ReplyDeleteI was just trying to pick the most obscure historical figure I could think of and put him in an anachronistic situation. Kinda like the whole "King was a Republican" thing - only pushed to a ridiculous extreme. Satire, don't ya know.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. We must never forget the atrocities of Odoacer.
ReplyDelete