Why Martin Luther King Was Republican

lol, what did you put in your corn flakes dude? I agree with some of your hypothesis as to how the Republican Party may have helped the Civil Rights movement along. But to say MLK really favored any political party at that time, is nonsense. MLK was a man fighting for the rights of his people in a country not his own, he was a "negotiator" more than anything else. Do a search on this topic, and you will see the debate has raged for decades on the subject, with the GOP shamelessly trying to capitalize on its connection with MLK, while being "completely" disengaged from blacks in America. MLK "never" claimed any party affiliation, nor urged blacks to favor one or the other. To see blacks voting largely Democratic immediately after the assassination of MLK I believe makes your argument a moot point, as blacks generally figured out who had their best interests in mind.

"While King can never be considered a political conservative, the snippets of conservative thinking in his musings on the black family, economic uplift, and religious values blend easily with the social conservatism of many blacks. In the decades after his murder, it has blended just as easily into the GOP's prescription for black ills. And that evidently is more than enough for black Republicans to say he'd be a big player on the GOP team." ~ Earl Ofari Hutchinson, BlackNews.com

You know Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican as well. Oddly the Republican party used to be the upstarts, agents of change and socially responsible, i.e. Lincoln. Something obviously changed along he way before brother Franklin Delano Roosevelt became arguably our greatest and only four term president.

So what if Martin Luther King Jr. was a republican? During the depression and second world war republicans/conservatives were actually conservative. Social security was created by a republican, as was the Hoover dam project.

Republicans and Democrats have switched political positions in the past, and eventually they will do so again.

LOL....that was so full of crap.

For one thing, socialism is about equality for EVERYONE, which is the complete opposite of slavery. Which, I'll remind you, is sometihng conservatives supported.

Nice try.

The progressive wing of the Republican party died in the election cycle of 1912 when party bosses chose Taft over the popular public and progressive Roosevelt, cheifly because Roosevelt worked against the idea of a party ruled by the elite or a ruling class at all. People like Nixon, Hoover, and Bush became thier standard bears in the following generations and its easy to connect the dots between them without a single progressive though in thier combined heads. We can thank them for HMO's, the governments slow response to the societal ills of the great depression, and the never trickle down econemy of the 80's and turn of this century. The ideaological thread linking all of those incredibly flawed and well proven policy failures, is the core of the modern Republican party and one that even Jacksonian Democrats would have scoffed at, that government is essentialy unacountable. That is has no responsibilities past our basic defense, its an abdication of responsibilities to comit to that and then wiretap as Nixon and Bush have done and violate the involate constitution in the name of defense while ignoring all other duties of the office, saying that they are beyond the scope of the federal governments. Republicans worked tirelessly to create the civil service reform this country needed in the 1800's so that offices relating to public safety and justice wouldn't be politicized and these men tore that away with the anouncement that the justice department even politicized its internships and honours program and that there are almost as many or more Bush apointees from Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell's colleges that are barely accredited than from the IVY league.

Yes, the Democrats were exactly as you said. Up until Lyndon Johnson got to a place where he could revolutionize the party from within. Yes, he pretty much sold out on his brother dixie-crats and led them kicking and screaming into a new Democratic Party. And those that did not follow became the core of the southern (and northern) Republican Party.

That may explain why the Republican Party of today looks nothing like the party of Abraham, Martin and John -- Does anybody know where they have gone?

And probably 90% of the pills are not needed.

Progressivism doesn't follow the path of any one political party. Its true that I don't admire many historic democrats, I despise Andrew Jackson and his era as the figurehead of the party. Jackson oredered the army to comit genocide, overrode the supreme court, violated our constitutional protections, and behaved like a hoodlum while in office in a manner not befitting the presidency and was awarded for it. I grew up near the home of a democratic vice president who in the 1800's lead a fillibuster in the senate to attempt to block the passage of the constitutional ammendment barring slavery.

That isn't a legacy I'm proud of, however I am also not proud of the likes of McKinley, Bush, and Hoover. McKinley whose racist and ignorant remarks about the Phillipines saying "God has put me in this office to bring Christianity to the Phillipines, despite the fact that the country was 90 percent christian when we liberated them from the spanish and then our "war" with thier christian insurgents who resented being placed under occupation when they had been seeking independence from spain for almost a century, cost us tens of billions at the turn of the century, a debt we didn't repay for more than ninety years cost us blood and treasure in a war which wasn't a war at all. The situation was obvious and enthocentrism had its day then and in the democratic party as well.

It ins't hard to imagine the vile sentiment of those days. Americans and native people don't have the best history. I can hear it, those darkies, those pacific natives, so unfortunate let's give them the gifts of western civilization! Hawai is our because we say so, the southwest is ours because we say so! Canada is ours because we say so! (war of 1812) Manifest destiny and such vulgar attitudes existed amongst both parties. Its no wonder that we should have troubles today as both parties at times apear to have not learned the lessons of history so that a modern day president Bush can also be so shortsighted and perhaps ethnocentric in his analysis in a conflict that is costing tremendous blood and treasure in a region that has learned to be wary of U.S. involvement. We supported the Taliban, Support the Saudis and wuhabist terrorists, Supported Sadam Husein, Supported the Shah, and then secretly supported the Ayatolah Khomeni and his government in the eighties. I think its time to admit we are in this situation because some higher ups didn't understand a culture and didn't care to understand a culture and who more importantly didn't feel responsible for thier ignorance.

I am not proud of a Hoover who sees hunger and does nothing, who sees poverty and does nothing, who feels no responsibility for domestic policies that caused crises and then makes no effort to put policies in place to aleviate the suffering that the government could have and should have averted. That type of inaction and that type of abdication of responsibility is also a legacy and one that is not progressive. If you consider the actions of the new deal as socialism than you denounce the ideas of Teddy Roosevelts square deal as well, and the regulatory efforts of agencies like the FDA and SEC so that we don't undergo another depression and so that we arent' sold food that will make us sick just for a profit.

History isn't kind to either party and its understandable why Washington espoused the idea hat parties were undemocratic. Kurt Vonnegut once wrote that there is one part in washington divided into two factions, the winners and the losers. Both are complicit in the abominable actions of Americas past and both can be responsible for egalitarian movements of the present day and for the future. Progressivism is more than any one parties postions on a subject its choosing the position that isn't convenient for the time but a postion that is prescient nonetheless one that anticipates the future rather than reacting to its circumstances when they are already being felt.

If Obama is president and just spend money without asking people to take responsibity, it will be a disaster. He can take it from the rich for a while then what.

Concerning family values, Martin Luther King would give Obama a good spanking that he would never forget.

He is comletely off and will fail young people and blacks in particular because he will not strengthen the American family.

Martin Luther King died in 1968. Many black leaders were republicans

The republican party of the 1800's is unrecognizable today. Back then they championed central government and civil rights while the democrats were the party of state's rights (code for slavery). Starting in the early 1900's however these ideals shifted until they were entirely opposite as is the case today.

I have not attended a convention. I am myself an independant. I do agree with the author that compassion without responsibility does not work.

In the same way national healthcare without requiring people to live a healthy life, loose weight, no STDs etc.. will bankrupt the country.

It is like having a mother and a father. Democrats and Republicans have only half the answer.

But all of that has changed today. How could a black man be the Democratic nominee if the party was remotely the same? And if we were talking about this election, somehow I think a man that pushed for freedom and rights wouldn't support the man that supports the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping. An interesting article, but still an article about the past.

Nice try, Dude. If anyone needs to see what gop is all about, go to one of the conventions. Very well thought out though.