So, we have a right wing entertainer and commentator who comes to meet our side of the aisle, embracing an important part of our side's message - and walking hand in hand with Dr. King's niece, who it turns out, had brought Dr. King's message some months back to Beck - who, it turns out, actually read and considered King's ideas and began discussing them as being important and productive ideas.
And, the response by our side: drop dead. No disagreement is allowed because we have a monopoly on the truth.
The smugness of this part of a left that is stupid and short-sighted beyond all imagination. It would make Dr. King turn over in his grave.
Ah, the perils of selective editing of history a.k.a. lies by omission!
Invariably, everyone does it, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, tea partiers, whatever. Hell, I've even caught myself doing it in the heat of writing a blog post to try and prove a point. Those either get corrected while writing, or they never get published. If I do publish one, and I find that I've made that error, I'm quite happy to correct myself, even if it means giving up the point I intended to make. You can't learn from history unless you are willing to look at all of it, en toto, and acknowledge that the whole unvarnished truth of it simply doesn't support what you want to believe.
I do find it so amazing that so many Conservatives have taken historical rewrites to a whole new level. One of my favorites is the notion that the founders did not think that judicial review was Constitutional. Yes, Jefferson and others didn't like it. TJ couldn't fathom that Congress could actually produce legislation that would be unconstitutional in the first place, and the check against that occurring would be the President, via a veto. That said, I can find no evidence that anyone, not even TJ himself, tried to get judicial review removed from judicial procedure via a Constitutional amendment. They maybe didn't like it, but it seems they understood the wisdom of it.
Which ¨important part of our side's message¨ did Beck embrace? Which of King´s ideas has Beck discovered as superior to the ideas Beck has advocate for the last 5 years?
By walking hand in hand with King´s niece, Beck was merely reinforcing his own message of social conservatism. Alveda King is not on ¨our side of the aisle¨ whether that aisle is defined by ideology or political party, and if you knew squat about her, you´d know that. Her salary is paid by abortion prohibitionist groups and rightwing think tanks, and she unabashedly identifies as conservative and scolds other black people for failing to do the same.
As for what would make MLK turn over in his grave, please. Beck on the best of all possible days is one of those white moderates of and to whom MLK wrote in the Letter from Birmingham Jail: ¨Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.¨ King at no point declared that those advocating for justice must gratefully lick the hands of those granting the slightest concession from the other side. On the contrary, he went from fighting for the basic constitutional right to vote and be treated equally in state supported institutions; to marching for the statutory right not to be discriminated against in private employment and accommodations; to advocating against the Vietnam War. Hell, a large number of Tea Partiers (the Ron Paul types) think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- what MLK held his March on Washington to press for -- has actually been a setback to race relations.
If King were going to revolve over anything to do with Beck, it would be having Beck use MLK as a ¨brand¨ shortly after declaring John Lewis (one of the young people of whom MLK said ¨One day the South will recognize its real heroes. ... They will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.¨) to be unfit to call himself a civil rights activist (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003220073).
(Of course Beck would just jump on that last bit about the founding fathers as "proof" that the Tea Party is the true heir to the civil rights movement, and that Lewis is bad for at some point abandoning the founding principals against UHC or progressive income taxes.)
Read this NY Times article. If the author of the article is correct, you are off base.
I do not claim Ms. King is on our side. I said that she brought King's message to Beck and that he embraced it, at least in part. The part was about integration - which was the main part, except to revisionists who have no experience with Dr. King.
So, we have a right wing entertainer and commentator who comes to meet our side of the aisle, embracing an important part of our side's message - and walking hand in hand with Dr. King's niece, who it turns out, had brought Dr. King's message some months back to Beck - who, it turns out, actually read and considered King's ideas and began discussing them as being important and productive ideas.
ReplyDeleteAnd, the response by our side: drop dead. No disagreement is allowed because we have a monopoly on the truth.
The smugness of this part of a left that is stupid and short-sighted beyond all imagination. It would make Dr. King turn over in his grave.
Ah, the perils of selective editing of history a.k.a. lies by omission!
ReplyDeleteInvariably, everyone does it, liberals, conservatives, libertarians, tea partiers, whatever. Hell, I've even caught myself doing it in the heat of writing a blog post to try and prove a point. Those either get corrected while writing, or they never get published. If I do publish one, and I find that I've made that error, I'm quite happy to correct myself, even if it means giving up the point I intended to make. You can't learn from history unless you are willing to look at all of it, en toto, and acknowledge that the whole unvarnished truth of it simply doesn't support what you want to believe.
I do find it so amazing that so many Conservatives have taken historical rewrites to a whole new level. One of my favorites is the notion that the founders did not think that judicial review was Constitutional. Yes, Jefferson and others didn't like it. TJ couldn't fathom that Congress could actually produce legislation that would be unconstitutional in the first place, and the check against that occurring would be the President, via a veto. That said, I can find no evidence that anyone, not even TJ himself, tried to get judicial review removed from judicial procedure via a Constitutional amendment. They maybe didn't like it, but it seems they understood the wisdom of it.
Mark Levin, are you listening?
Which ¨important part of our side's message¨ did Beck embrace? Which of King´s ideas has Beck discovered as superior to the ideas Beck has advocate for the last 5 years?
ReplyDeleteBy walking hand in hand with King´s niece, Beck was merely reinforcing his own message of social conservatism. Alveda King is not on ¨our side of the aisle¨ whether that aisle is defined by ideology or political party, and if you knew squat about her, you´d know that. Her salary is paid by abortion prohibitionist groups and rightwing think tanks, and she unabashedly identifies as conservative and scolds other black people for failing to do the same.
As for what would make MLK turn over in his grave, please. Beck on the best of all possible days is one of those white moderates of and to whom MLK wrote in the Letter from Birmingham Jail: ¨Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.¨ King at no point declared that those advocating for justice must gratefully lick the hands of those granting the slightest concession from the other side. On the contrary, he went from fighting for the basic constitutional right to vote and be treated equally in state supported institutions; to marching for the statutory right not to be discriminated against in private employment and accommodations; to advocating against the Vietnam War. Hell, a large number of Tea Partiers (the Ron Paul types) think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- what MLK held his March on Washington to press for -- has actually been a setback to race relations.
If King were going to revolve over anything to do with Beck, it would be having Beck use MLK as a ¨brand¨ shortly after declaring John Lewis (one of the young people of whom MLK said ¨One day the South will recognize its real heroes. ... They will be the young high school and college students, the young ministers of the gospel and a host of their elders, courageously and nonviolently sitting in at lunch counters and willingly going to jail for conscience' sake. One day the South will know that when these disinherited children of God sat down at lunch counters, they were in reality standing up for what is best in the American dream and for the most sacred values in our Judaeo Christian heritage, thereby bringing our nation back to those great wells of democracy which were dug deep by the founding fathers in their formulation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.¨) to be unfit to call himself a civil rights activist (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003220073).
(Of course Beck would just jump on that last bit about the founding fathers as "proof" that the Tea Party is the true heir to the civil rights movement, and that Lewis is bad for at some point abandoning the founding principals against UHC or progressive income taxes.)
ReplyDeletePG,
ReplyDeleteRead this NY Times article. If the author of the article is correct, you are off base.
I do not claim Ms. King is on our side. I said that she brought King's message to Beck and that he embraced it, at least in part. The part was about integration - which was the main part, except to revisionists who have no experience with Dr. King.