Martin Luther King: Democrat or Republican?


by OAQfirst
Tags: democrat, king, luther, martin, republican
OAQfirst
OAQfirst is offline
#1
Aug29-08, 08:30 AM
P: 65
I'm finding a lot of this dispute all over the Net. Can anyone provide an authoritative link, because I'd like to know if this is the truth.

Why Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican

By Frances Rice

It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism.

It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860's, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950's and 1960's.
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans....a%20Republican
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Lemurs match scent of a friend to sound of her voice
Repeated self-healing now possible in composite materials
'Heartbleed' fix may slow Web performance
WarPhalange
WarPhalange is offline
#2
Aug29-08, 01:09 PM
P: 343
Well, he had a spine, so he wasn't a Democrat... but he wanted civil rights enforced by the government, so he wasn't a Republican.

Can we just agree that he was an independent?
mgb_phys
mgb_phys is offline
#3
Aug29-08, 01:22 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 8,961
Martin Luther King, so he was a royalist

TheStatutoryApe
TheStatutoryApe is offline
#4
Aug29-08, 02:24 PM
TheStatutoryApe's Avatar
P: 1,549

Martin Luther King: Democrat or Republican?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.

Read. Particularly under 'influences'.

The positions of the democrat and republican party have changed substantially over time. At some points the democrats have been interventionist and the republicans isolationist. In current times the trend has obviously changed in certain regards. There have been changes in regards to the 'statists' and 'federalists' aswell. Currently a bid for secession might be regarded as a liberal idea since the current republican admin has been vying for more federal power. You'll find that the really hardcore traditionalist conservatives hate Bush and the really fringe nutjob types think he is the antichrist.

I would say MLK was a dem and that by todays standards he would easily be considered a dem still.
Evo
Evo is offline
#5
Aug29-08, 02:34 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,915
Odd that it's so difficult to find an answer. MLK Jr's father switched to Democrat, after the following instance, but MLK Jr "made no endorsement". The event below was 8 years before his death.

In October 1960, when Martin Luther King, Jr. was arrested at a peaceful sit-in in Atlanta, Robert Kennedy telephoned the judge and helped secure King's release. Although King, Sr. had previously opposed Kennedy because he was a Catholic, he expressed his appreciation for these calls and switched his support to Kennedy. King, Sr. had been a lifelong registered Republican, and had endorsed Republican Richard Nixon. King, Jr. made no endorsement,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Sr.
OrbitalPower
OrbitalPower is offline
#6
Aug30-08, 10:58 AM
P: 88
Martin Luther King Jr. was a socialist. Near the end of his life he spoke about the economic ills of capitalism and when he was killed he was supporting sanitation workers on strike in Memphis. Most people don't know this.

In his final letters he called end not only to imperialism but also to the economic imperialism of capitalism and so on.

That article is complete BS too. The 1964 Civil Rights Act would NOT have passed had many Democrats not voted for it. The reason the percentages are disproportionate is because there were a lot of "Dixiecrats" at the time (think of people like Thurman, Miller) who were more traditional, conservative demodcrats (demos were a majority at the time).

Most of the Civil Rights movements and organizations that got it going, the sit-ins and so on, were done by more left-leaning groups like the SNCC and so on. Indeed, the reason King's name is known at all is because of the works of these brave civil rights advocates and lawyers and so on. Even Newt Gingrich said that the Civil Rights act came about because of the "left-wing of the democratic party."

The abolitionists of the 1800s also considered the Republicans far too tame on Civil Rights. The article is complete BS.
BobG
BobG is offline
#7
Aug30-08, 02:13 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
BobG's Avatar
P: 2,275
Quote Quote by OAQfirst View Post
I'm finding a lot of this dispute all over the Net. Can anyone provide an authoritative link, because I'd like to know if this is the truth.


http://www.nationalblackrepublicans....a%20Republican
The idea that MLK would be a Republican at some point in his life is at least credible. The problem is that both parties have changed significantly since that time, so the point isn't particularly relevant beyond being an interesting trivia question.

Some of the most right wing factions of the Republican Party come from ex-Democrats that bolted because of national defense issues and civil rights issues.

Some Republicans wouldn't be very upset if the Democrats would take them back.
ramsey2879
ramsey2879 is offline
#8
Aug30-08, 04:28 PM
P: 891
Quote Quote by TheStatutoryApe View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.

Read. Particularly under 'influences'.

The positions of the democrat and republican party have changed substantially over time. At some points the democrats have been interventionist and the republicans isolationist. In current times the trend has obviously changed in certain regards. There have been changes in regards to the 'statists' and 'federalists' aswell. Currently a bid for secession might be regarded as a liberal idea since the current republican admin has been vying for more federal power. You'll find that the really hardcore traditionalist conservatives hate Bush and the really fringe nutjob types think he is the antichrist.

I would say MLK was a dem and that by todays standards he would easily be considered a dem still.
While you are correct in that the wikipedia cite effectively notes that Dr Martin Luther King, Sr was republican at first and later switched and his son, Martin Luther King Jr. remained neutral, I would not regard King as a democrat since they are well known for their socialist agenda whereas King was not. King was more in favor of every American having an equal chance to education, voting and job opportunities and did not favor self degrading handouts under the then current socialist welfare programs.

Some quotes from the Black Republican Groups "white" paper:

"7. What Party, by the greatest percentage,
passed the Civil Rights Act and the Civil
Rights Acts of the 1960’s?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[X] b. Republican Party"

This may be misleading since it may show only that the majority of "republicans that voted" sided with the democrats who were in the majority. I would like to know if actually a higher percentage of "republican membership" per se that voted for the civil rights bill than the percentage of the democratic membership.

"8. What was the Party of President Richard
Nixon who instituted the first Affirmative
Action program in 1969 with the Philadelphia
Plan that established goals and timetables?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[X] b. Republican Party"

"9. What is the Party of President George W.
Bush who supports the U.S. Supreme Court’s
University of Michigan Affirmative Action
decision, and is spending over $500 billion to
fight AIDS in Africa and on programs to help
black Americans prosper, including school
vouchers, the faith-based initiative, home
ownership, and small business ownership?
[ ] a. Democratic Party
[X] b. Republican Party"

While this is true, I still think a lot more emphasis on education and job creating incentives is necessary than under Bush. Hopefully, both McCain and Obama agree.

Overall, while the obviously being a one sided Republican white paper on the issue of racism, it is an striking contrast to a lot of the faulty stereotypes that currently are spread in the mass media. I hope that whoever becomes President will have been chosen based upon his merit and not the false Democratic-Republican stereotypes. I also think that the past policies of racism have created a lot of distressed areas both white and black. 1) blacks were denied equal rights and 2) a lot of whites could not complete with the low cost of slave labor. There is an moral obligation to channel extra resources to the distressed areas to enable better opportunities for education and job opportunities but I don't believe in simple non-merit handouts. America cannot continue to complete in the world if any of its citizens are not given the opportunity and incentive to live up to their fullest potential.
OrbitalPower
OrbitalPower is offline
#9
Aug30-08, 04:44 PM
P: 88
ramsey2879, where is your evidence that King Jr. didn't support social welfare?

And it is the Democrats who generally favor across the board regulation, whereas Republicans support corporate favoritism (corporate welfare, militarism, and so on).

King himself said that he believed in "sharing the wealth" and was a Democratic-Socialist.

It's all in that wiki article linked above.
Astronuc
Astronuc is offline
#10
Aug30-08, 05:06 PM
Admin
Astronuc's Avatar
P: 21,625
Interesting, yesterday I heard Michael Beschloss, author of Critical Moments, Critical Choices, talk about the relationship between MLK, Jr, and John and Robert Kennedy. MLK was not too happen about Kennedy's reluctance to get involved in the Civil Rights movement, and Kennedy was reluctant because he did not want to alienate the southern Democrats before the 1964 presidential election.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=94102192
OrbitalPower
OrbitalPower is offline
#11
Aug30-08, 05:07 PM
P: 88
Quote Quote by BobG View Post
The idea that MLK would be a Republican at some point in his life is at least credible.
Location of credible evidence?

I don't know of any source that King was a philosophical "Republican," especially when he started developing his ideas about Civil Rights and imperialism.

By that point it is clear that he philosophically differed from republicans.

There is nothing in the article above stating he was a Republican; I think Republicans would have made a big case out of it if he was.

Quote Quote by BobG View Post
The problem is that both parties have changed significantly since that time, so the point isn't particularly relevant beyond being an interesting trivia question.

Some of the most right wing factions of the Republican Party come from ex-Democrats that bolted because of national defense issues and civil rights issues.

Some Republicans wouldn't be very upset if the Democrats would take them back.
This has absolutely nothing to do with King's philosophy.

Anyway, King came to oppose imperialism, and our economic system.

You cannot oppose both our foreign policiy, and our monarchistic economic policies and be a Republican, who generally favor the status quo.

You CAN do that and be a Democratic, as you can be a Democrat and favor actual democracy, but there is no evidence he was a Democrat either I believe (though certainly Democratic-Socialism is closer to the democrats than the Republicans).
Evo
Evo is offline
#12
Aug30-08, 05:14 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,915
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
Interesting, yesterday I heard Michael Beschloss, author of Critical Moments, Critical Choices, talk about the relationship between MLK, Jr, and John and Robert Kennedy. MLK was not too happen about Kennedy's reluctance to get involved in the Civil Rights movement, and Kennedy was reluctant because he did not want to alienate the southern Democrats before the 1964 presidential election.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=94102192
It was Robert Kennedy that ordered the wiretap on MLK.

The FBI began secretly tracking Dr. King's flights and watching his associates. In July 1963, a month before the March on Washington, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover filed a request with Attorney General Robert Kennedy to tap King's and his associates' phones and to bug their homes and offices.

In September, Kennedy consented to the technical surveillance. Kennedy gave the FBI permission to break into King's office and home to install the bugs, as long as agents recognized the "delicacy of this particular matter" and didn't get caught installing them. Kennedy added a proviso -- he wanted to be personally informed of any pertinent information.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/20/mlk...acy/index.html
OrbitalPower
OrbitalPower is offline
#13
Aug30-08, 05:18 PM
P: 88
It was J. Edgar Hoover who ordered the wiretap on MLK, Kennedy (who was Hoover's boss) simply obliged but he said it was with great difficulty.

It was wrong of both of them, though.
Evo
Evo is offline
#14
Aug30-08, 05:22 PM
Mentor
Evo's Avatar
P: 25,915
Quote Quote by OrbitalPower View Post
It was J. Edgar Hoover who ordered the wiretap on MLK, Kennedy (who was Hoover's boss) simply obliged but he said it was with great difficulty.

It was wrong of both of them, though.
See above, I hadn't finished my post. Hoover asked for permission from Kennedy, who agreed. It seems the actual transcripts are sealed now until 2027.
OrbitalPower
OrbitalPower is offline
#15
Aug30-08, 05:42 PM
P: 88
Yes, I agree. Some of Robert Kennedy's actions do not support his image as a champion of racial equality. For instance, when the Freedom Riders were getting beaten up in Birmingham, Alabama, buses were being burned, and so on, Robert Kennedy didn't do anything about it. He supposedly changed and had a better understanding of race issues in his later years, though. Generally, I don't think he was that bad of a politician compared to some of the politicians at the time.

Anyway, my view of King Jr. is that he was independent, as probably many civil rights people were, and he would have disliked the Democrats for supposedly starting the Vietnam war, and the Republicans for explanding it.

His speech at Riverside Church, condemnations of the US aggression (I won't quote it) and his explanations of why he couldn't just stick to Civil Rights, as he had "worked too long and hard" against "segregated public accommodations" to start "segregating [his] moral concern" really speak for themselves.
ramsey2879
ramsey2879 is offline
#16
Aug30-08, 06:05 PM
P: 891
Quote Quote by OrbitalPower View Post
Martin Luther King Jr. was a socialist. Near the end of his life he spoke about the economic ills of capitalism and when he was killed he was supporting sanitation workers on strike in Memphis. Most people don't know this.

In his final letters he called end not only to imperialism but also to the economic imperialism of capitalism and so on.

That article is complete BS too. The 1964 Civil Rights Act would NOT have passed had many Democrats not voted for it. The reason the percentages are disproportionate is because there were a lot of "Dixiecrats" at the time (think of people like Thurman, Miller) who were more traditional, conservative demodcrats (demos were a majority at the time).

Most of the Civil Rights movements and organizations that got it going, the sit-ins and so on, were done by more left-leaning groups like the SNCC and so on. Indeed, the reason King's name is known at all is because of the works of these brave civil rights advocates and lawyers and so on. Even Newt Gingrich said that the Civil Rights act came about because of the "left-wing of the democratic party."

The abolitionists of the 1800s also considered the Republicans far too tame on Civil Rights. The article is complete BS.
You give more credit to Newt Gringrich than is due, if so many of the conservative republicans had not voted for the bill, the bill also would not have passed. The majority of the American people believe in fair pay for an honest days work and equal opportunity to work; and, there is a big disagreement upon whether this can be accomplished under a socialist system. Abraham Lincoln who freed the slaves said "A patent truth. Made so plain by our good Father in Heaven, that all feel and understand it, even down to brutes and creeping insects. The ant, who has toiled and dragged a crumb to his nest, will furiously defend the fruit of his labor, against whatever robber assails him. So plain that even the most dumb and stupid slave that ever toiled for a master, does constantly know that he is wronged. So plain that no one, high or low ever does mistake it, except in a plainly selfish way; for although volumn upon volumn is written to prove that slavery is such a good thing, we never hear of the man who wishes to take the good of it , by becoming a slave himself."

"Most governments have been based, practically, on the denial of equal rights of men. As I have, in part stated them; ours began by affirming those rights. They said, some men are too ignorant, and vicious, to share in government. Possibly so, said we; and by your system you would keep them ignorant and vicious. We proposed to give all a chance; and we expected the weak to become stronger, the ignorant, wiser; and all better, and happier together.

"We made the experiment; and the fruit is before us"
From "The collected works of Abraham Limcoln" vol. II, page 222 (Fragment on Slavery)

Also, the patent system was a capitalist invention and Abe Lincoln is famous for his saying
"The Patent system added the fuel of incentive to the fire of genius"
That is what made America the great country that it is.

America is strong now and will continue to grow much stronger if we every American a honest chance to live the American dream to its fullest, but not if we start removing all incentive to toil by punishing the worker and rewarding the lazy. Of course we must not mistake the oppressed man for a lazy man but must continue to trust in the fuel of incentive properly placed.
OrbitalPower
OrbitalPower is offline
#17
Aug30-08, 06:29 PM
P: 88
Yes, that is all true. I rather like Lincoln, actually. He also said:

"You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it."
-- August 24, 1855 - Letter to Joshua Speed

"This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave."
-- April 6, 1859 - Letter to Henry Pierce

I really like the latter quote because it shows the hypocrisy of people who would call for slavery - they themselves would not like to be a slave. I also disagree with many Libertarian-economists who say that one can sell one self into slavery.

However, Lincoln did not free ALL the slaves and wanted to ship Africans back to Africa. This is made clear in several of his letters.

Still, I am not a Civil War revisionist and believe slavery was so institutionalized the war may have been necessary; plus, the capitalist slavery was especially brutal, one of the worst forms of slavery in history - it combined the element of racism with the concept that some people are "property" of corporations and businesses, and many of them even had corporations imprinted on them by the trading companies.

I never said that anything that contradicts those statements above, or denied that the US was generally a capitalistic country with a history of rulings and laws that favor corporations. However, while most Americans support the capitalist conceptions of property they also do not support unlimited property rights, and believe in things such as UHC etc. I think it's clear that capitalism works best under social democracy. We (the US) have already tried the conservative approach and it was far too inequitable.

Furthermore, here is an interesting quote from Lincoln:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864

Although, there is some debate among historians whether he actually said it. Certainly, many Americans have always held this sentiment, though, so anti-corporatism is not anti-american.
ramsey2879
ramsey2879 is offline
#18
Aug30-08, 06:44 PM
P: 891
Quote Quote by OrbitalPower View Post
ramsey2879, where is your evidence that King Jr. didn't support social welfare?

And it is the Democrats who generally favor across the board regulation, whereas Republicans support corporate favoritism (corporate welfare, militarism, and so on).

King himself said that he believed in "sharing the wealth" and was a Democratic-Socialist.

It's all in that wiki article linked above.
King was Christen, it is in the bible that we five only a 10% tithe, and of course also to give to Ceasar what is due him.

Where in the wiki article do you find support for your claim that King was a socialist?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Republican-Democrat Cycle Current Events 18
Republican or Democrat Current Events 30
So, you consider yourself a Democrat, do you? Current Events 121
World vote: Democrat vs Republican U. S. President! Current Events 11
Difference between Democrat and Republican? Current Events 40