What Did Martin Want?
The dueling rallies are over - no riots or fistfights, or even much in the way of politics. The police stood by and had a nice day in the park. For all of the hand-wringing before the event, it turned out to be a good day to visit the mall for somewhere between "tens of thousands" and "up to half a million" people depending on who you want to cite. We are of course talking about the Glenn Beck vs. Al Sharpton rallies.
Beck was accused of "hijacking" Martin Luther King Jr's "I Have A Dream" speech / day, and sullying it. He has been commenting during his show on the concept of "social justice" as a driving force for the government to assert more control over individual lives. This was a shock to the sensibilities of those who remember the marches, and the violence with which they were met. Dr. King was the iconic leader of the move to social justice in the areas of race and poverty.
In one of the pre-rally interviews (which aired in part on "The Morning Briefing" on POTUS), a person representing the Sharpton view (TPP research has not been able to identify him) participated in a conversation with Beck. The two could come to no agreement other than "perhaps we have different definitions of "social justice". We believe that is exactly the case. At issue was what King was fighting for.
Definitions do matter, and the two commentators do have differing definitions. To the Al Sharpton group, social justice is taking a group that is oppressed and securing them rights and equality in society. Seeking redress for wrongs is a component. This is what King was in the process of accomplishing. He led at an important time in the march to a colorless society. We have not fully arrived yet, but have come a long way.
To Beck the term "social justice" has become a code word. The noble cause of Dr. King has been hijacked by the progressive (liberal) movement as a means for the government to exert more control in individual lives in ways incompatible with individual liberty. Everyone is categorized into an "oppressed" group (the uninsured, the unions, undocumented workers) or an "oppressor" group (big health care, big business, Arizona). This then requires government action to impose justice. That distinction in definition is what separates these groups, not the goal that they look to reach.
Dr. King's idea was of a colorless society where each has the ability to prosper regardless of race. He persuaded the Federal government to step in to secure the rights defined in the US Constitution that were being systematically denied to his flock by certain states. Specifically, he called for the enforcement of the Bill of Rights and the 14th & 15th Amendments. This is fully consistent with the conservative view.
This was done primarily through federal legislation that forbade denial of housing, employment, education, voting and just about every other aspect of life that we take for granted. We are all aware that just because Congress decrees something, it doesn't automatically happen. You can't change minds with legislation, but you can change behavior. What changes minds is time.
The break with Sharpton lies not in the granting and enforcement of rights, but in the legislation that followed to "make up for all of the bad things done" to Dr. King's flock. Many of the "War on Poverty" programs, while well intentioned, have proven to be harmful to the very people they were designed to help.
For an example we can use the expansion of welfare under the "War on Poverty". The driver of this legislation was President Lyndon Johnson who was concerned about poverty in general, and it's effects on the black community in particular. He sought to give assistance to the poor. In the short term, this may have been necessary. As the legislation was crafted, it fostered institutional poverty. What is worse, it spread the phenomena beyond the deep south to urban areas nationwide.
Welfare rules rewarded the absence of the father by paying more to a single woman with a child than a married one (the thought was that a married woman was married to a man who works, not factoring in the high unemployment in the black community). This was a main contributor to the decimation of the black family, and a lack of role models for young boys to emulate. A strong family makes for a strong society. The black family fractured under this pressure in order to ensure that the children would be better provided for. Additionally, more children meant more money. As a result single-motherhood skyrocketed. The fathers were stripped of the pride of family, and the motivation to succeed. Children grew up knowing this as normal.
Public housing was just the next generation of the white man providing sub-standard quarters for "them". There was no pride of owning a home, or tending a garden, or even choosing the color of paint that your living room was. Rows of apartments, all the same, in the same hospital green cinder block. High rises warehousing the poor like so much meat. Children grew up seeing this as their lot.
Food stamps became the modern day equivalent of the rations given out to the field workers. Every facet of life or the poor family was dependent on the government. Anything that would foster individual pride - family, work, education, property - was stripped away. Gaining too much of any would end the government "benefits". The first generation submitted, the second generation knew this as normal, the third generation did not know better was possible. This has been unfolding for nearly half a century in the name of compassion.
All of these programs were well-intentioned, but the rules used to qualify for benefits discouraged hope. Good intentions are fine, but it is the result that matters. Jim Crow and Segregation were destroyed, but a new slavery was introduced. The plantation was replaced with the projects.
Dr. King would not support this result. Dr. King fought so that each individual would have the opportunity to fulfill their potential. He looked for a hand up, not a handout. King's struggle was for the dignity of his flock, not to succumb to dependence or a sense of entitlement for past wrongs. This is where Beck and Sharpton separate on what needs to be done to address the problem.
Sharpton is insisting that the government "Fix It!" He feels, and deserves to feel, that the policies of the United States have held his people back for centuries, and he is correct in that assessment. He calls into account the liberal view - that given enough time, a progressive government can fix all of the ills of a society, and demands that it fulfill it's promises. Experience might speak to Rev. Sharpton. No matter what the Federal government has done to "Fix it!" (and it has done a lot) many wind up back at the same place over and over again.
Beck is of the position that individual action is what allows a person to reach his potential - personal responsibility in the conduct of your own life. This was a view that was shared by Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington and both Reverends King (senior and junior). When Dr. King started his work, the road to reaching full potential for a black man was blocked. His movement knocked aside all of those barriers except for the personal racism in the minds of a dying out breed of bigot. Every avenue of success is available regardless of race.
The proof of that is all around us - Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, Barack Obama. It is seen in the ever growing black middle class. It was not gained by the government holding the hands of people on their way to success. It was gained by opening doors. It was the action of the individual passing through the door that determined success.
The best example of government actually helping move people in poverty towards Dr King's dream was the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. In it the Republican led Congress partnered with then President Bill Clinton to find a way to break the despair of generational poverty and dependence. The Reform gave a true boost in education, job training, and life skills to people who did not have the opportunity to learn these things through family and community. It reduced the welfare rolls by 53%, and provided many families the skills they needed to move up out of poverty.This is the way out that Mr. Beck sees - education, application and determination.
"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."
The words echo in all decent people. Being judged by the color of your skin was to think of all as the same. Being judged by the content of your character can only be done individually. What is in each person's character is what makes a person unique. King's call was to look beyond race and to judge the individual. Opportunity should not be denied because of race, but each individual will make different use of that opportunity. Equality of opportunity is a right, outcome depends on individual talent and effort..
Common Sense Dictates
Perhaps the answer is not for two groups with the same goal to be fighting with each other. There needs to be collaboration between men of good will. A lot of the hyperbole that makes for good talk radio is not helpful to this cause. On some of the more popular conservative talk radio shows, Rev Sharpton is called a profiteer on the misery of his people, a hack with a bullhorn. On many of the left leaning programs Mr. Beck is called a "clown". This does not help to solve any problems.
TPP believes that both Rev Sharpton and Mr Beck are genuine in their concerns, and in their view of the best way to bring about constructive solutions. We also believe that many of the words used have different meanings to different people. Having clarity on these differences in definition would be helpful in starting a truly productive conversation. We can only propose solutions when we understand both the problem, and the expectations. Good should not stand against good. Good should stand against evil. So says Common Sense.
RLB
Categories: Constitutional Issues, Social Policy, Civic Duty, Historical perspective
Tags: war on poverty historical perspective civic responsibility
While I agree with a lot of what you say, it's not that simple. Education and determination are what is needed, but a lot of the people who need to do it don't know how to make the most of it. It's like the house is on fire and someone pulls up with a fire truck, tosses the keys to the homeowner and tells him now his home is saved. It helps if you know how to turn on the pump and maybe have some help handling the hoses. It's just not as easy as "Do it".
Reply to this
I'm with Randi. It's more complicated than, OK here's college, have a good life. Just getting someone to that open door is horribly complicated in a lot of cases. Many of these kids are dealing with family issues and live in war zones. It's not like they had a normal upbringing. We need t do more.
Reply to this
A war zone? Seriously? Like Baghdad? OK, some live in crappy neighborhoods, but if opportunity is there and they choose to not take it, for whatever reason, that's a personal choice. Lots of people make it against all the odds. I don't buy the hand holding.
Reply to this
it's too simple on both sides of the argument, and it speaks a lot about American society. You have the all liberty, rugged individualist types. Not everyone can do it that way. If you can, great. Maybe that explains the Colin Powells of the world. On the other side you have the people who think that just because you are poor or African-American you need to be led every step of the way. That's patronizing and a little bit racist. How about we tailor the needs to the individual? That's hard to do as the federal government, but easier to do in the family or school or church. Hillary got plowed for "It Takes A Village" but sometimes it does. The fed needs to open the doors, but that doesn't mean their can't be help on a case by case basis.
Reply to this
It is the government's job to make sure that everyone's rights are upheld, but it isn't their job to be a nanny to everyone and make sure that they are warm and comforted. That's what charity is for. If there is no family, and if the school is bad there are still a lot of avenues for help. It's our job as people to care. It's not the job of the feds, or my tax dollars.
Reply to this
Hello! The Beck thing wasn't about race, or King. It was about restoring honor. You all remember honor - living up to your word, honoring your commitments, trying to live in truth? It had NOTHING to do with King until Sharpton wanted to whine about how oppressed his fat rear is. The problem is not racism, it's whiners from the old civil rights movement not realizing that the world has passed them by. It's not about skin color anymore. All a black man needs to get over on justice is a bank account. Look at OJ Simpson or Obama's buddy Gates. There's no dogs, no fire hoses, and no lynchings. All you have to do to get by is pay attention in school and get a job. Join the 21st century!
Reply to this
Hey Vince, nothing like in your face. I'll give you the point that it isn't about race anymore, but if you're out of work in this economy, you're not going to get a job anytime soon. Sharpton is a blowhard, and he's way off key on this. If he wanted to throw a demonstration he should be complaining about no jobs being available because current economic policy is punishing his people most.
Reply to this
Vince, if it had nothing to do with King, then Beck shouldn't have said that he was honoring King.
Paying attention in school, getting a job, learning the system, etc, just isn't as easy as it sounds when you are a 4th generation person living in the cycle of poverty. Telling someone who is in this situation that "we have your solution, here is is, just take it" is akin to telling a deeply traditional Japanese man to hug and kiss his wife in public. Changing cultural norms and rules just doesn't work like that; it takes a long time and a lot of work.
That being said, it is important to realize that today's prejudices don't have so much to do with race as they do with socioeconomic status. I think this article made some very good points, but missed the mark on where the issue lies today. Opportunity has stopped knocking on the doors of our poorest citizens. That is where our Glen Becks and Al Sharptons, our local, state, and federal government all need some real common sense.
Reply to this
Shannon, what you're saying is right on. The kids that I work with aren't even aware that there is a world outside their own poverty. What the article says is true - no role models and the only thing they know is that the government cuts them checks and food stamps to live on. For a lot of them, the only way they see out is the gangs or the drug dealers. They wouldn't know how to adjust to a normal life any more than I would know how to survive the way they live.
Reply to this
It is mostly economics now. Only a fool would openly deny someone his due because of race. The point was made in the article that we're going on the 3rd and maybe 4th generation on public assistance. It is a lifestyle and a culture. For people who are the kids of people raised in the system, getting into what we call everyday life would be like me moving to China. I wouldn't have a clue as to how to get by. That was the great thing about Clinton's welfare reform - it provided counselors to teach people to transition into the working world - everything from money management to how to act at work. Just going in cold turkey is not an option.
Reply to this
Just so you know, "Restoring Honor" wasn't about King until Sharpton started making a fuss. He just wanted to come together in a big way and try to speak from the heart. The themes were God, honor, getting along with each other, and showing a charitable spirit. I saw many groups of people just praying, listening and standing together. Since it's been brought up though, I think that Rev. King would have gladly participated. His focus was always on others, not on himself. Not so with Sharpton.
Reply to this
Martin would definitely not have settled for the way the inner cities turned out. His assassination robbed the movement of it's moral center. His loss was so great that no one man could fill his shoes. Had Martin lived, the outcome would have been different for the poor of all races.
Reply to this
I was at Restoring Honor too. It was the best behaved group of people that I've ever been involved with. Everyone that I spoke with shared MLK's ideals about the ability for everyone to rise to where ever their talents can take them. Not a mention of skin color anywhere, and just to make the point, there were a good amount of non-whites, who were accepted as brothers and sisters. This rally was about God and America. We sought to honor God, and to make America the best it can be. Sarah Palin spoke about what it was like to be the mother of an active service person in harm's way. She (nor Beck) said anything to slam Obama or the Democrats. The rally rose above politics. The only yelling that happened came from Sharpton's group. I agree with what cornerstone said. MLK would have enjoyed participating.
Reply to this
Look, I don't care if it was about Martin or not. It still wasn't right to stomp on the anniversary of the dream speech. All you conservatives are complaining about the mosque in New York. It's the same argument. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should. Beck should of shown some respect and changed the date or the place. You people saying Martin would of been with you - you don't know. You don't know because some cracker killed him. Shame on all of you.
Reply to this
Yeah, isn't the first rule of honor to show respect? Not much respect in this.
Reply to this
Now that sounds like the Sharpton crowd. The easiest way to get respect is to show it. It doesn't matter whether King would have shown or not (even though his niece was on of the speakers at Restoring Honor), he certainly would not have objected to a gathering of people to pray and express their love of America on any date or at any place. I agree that African-Americans have gotten the short end of the stick but generation after generation living on welfare is not a solution. The only real solution is to give these people the tools to become productive. I understand that might require counseling and training, but at least that's an investment in a person that will have a beneficial return for society. That would be worth the cost.
Reply to this
I didn't attend the whole thing, but my office is nearby so I was stopped by to listen for awhile. Everyone that I chatted with was open and friendly. No anger, no divisivenss, not even any signs. It was sort of like going to a church carnival. It was an enormous crowd, bigger than anything I remember since Obama's inauguration. I don't know how many for sure, but it was way more than the news is reporting. I think the Dems are in huge trouble come November.
Reply to this
From everything that I hear, the Beck thing was family-friendly and a good experience, and I'm as middle of the road as you get.
I don't know what Dr. King would have thought about it for sure, but I can't picture him discouraging prayer or defense of liberty. That was the core of his mission. He was very concerned by poverty and I can't picture him being pleased with how so many that he tried to lift up are living the way public assistance is set up. I think that he would be suggesting a better way since the current way has proven harmful to so many. I don't know what he would suggest exactly, but education, skills and motivation would seem to be at least part of it. He certainly wouldn't call for more of the same.
Reply to this
I've been following this, and there's good points all around. It seems like most people share my concern that you can't just offer opportunity if people don't know how to take advantage of it. I agree that MLK wouldn't be satisfied with how things have worked out for those on welfare. Still, we have to help those who can't get by on their own. You can't just cut those people loose.
Reply to this
I dunno Randi, what did people do prior to 1965? They got jobs. Ok some of them weren't great jobs, but if you wanted to eat, you worked. People found a way. I grew up in a working class family - my dad was a mason. he started out as a laborer for no money and as his skill levels increased he made better money. There was no welfare, and we made due. If anything, the emphasis was on improving yourself to make more money. None of this sitting around and collecting a check from the government. It's counter productive. Charity should be for charities to deal with, not the government.
Reply to this
This country presents an enormous amount of opportunity to anyone who cares to apply themselves. I grew up pretty poor. my dad was a barber when haircuts were 5 bucks. There was no college in my future since there was no way to pay for it. I joined army. Part of my enlistment was to get trained in electronics. The service paid for my college, at a good school. I became an electronics engineer and make a good living now, even in this bad economy. No one walked me by the hand. I did what I needed to do. If I could do it, then most people can.
Reply to this
Thank you for one more nice article. The place else may anybody get that kind of information in such an ideal approach of presentation
Reply to this
MLK's message was one of moving forward and opportunity - of being all that you can be. He recognized that at the time, the deck was stacked against the blacks. He changed that. I don't think anyone with half a brain would say that someone should be denied an opportunity because of race. Now it's skills. People still might need help in getting skills, and doing that is a far better solution than tossing people just enough money to get by. MLK would never have approved of what has become of the black community in the inner city.
Reply to this
Great ....You have beautifully presented your thought in this blog post. I admire the time and effort you put into your blog and detailed information you offer.
Reply to this
Dr. King sought all men to live in dignity, without regard to race. That has not been accomplished. I find it disheartening that the primary liberal charge against Mr. Beck and his followers are that they are racists. I see nothing of the kind. They appear to be good people who are fearful in troubled times. Calling them back to God and honor is a good thing. I just hope that they maintain a generous spirit with those less fortunate. Self-sufficiency only works when you have the ability.
Reply to this