Around this time of year, during the birthdate of Martin Luther King Jr., Jan. 15, 1929—just ahead of Black History Month in February—pundits from all points of the political spectrum attempt to interpret King’s legacy. Most portrayals contain elements of accuracy, but unfortunately many have attempted to hijack his legacy by anchoring it to class warfare and other grievances.
Many liberal or progressive activists feel that King would blend right in with Black Lives Matter and the Occupy Movement, or other groups that endorse an endlessly expanding welfare state. Some on the left spin the narrative that King favored an entitlement mentality of constant demands without the presence of a healthy work ethic.
They are way off target. King would not have aligned himself with such narcissistic and lawless anarchists, since he embodied the principle of nonviolent resistance to oppression similar to Mohandas K. Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Bishop Desmond Tutu. He was also highly disciplined in the tactics he used to forge greater racial equality. King opposed segregated Jim Crow laws, because desegregation was his long-term dream for society. He was jailed several times due to his outspoken battle for equal civil and economic rights.
King was primarily a Baptist minister and theologian who passionately believed that “a man should be judged not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character.” After studying his actions and writings, you will discover that MLK never truly accepted collectivism or iterations of Marxism.
Although King periodically railed against some specific American domestic and foreign policies, he also recognized democracy as a defender of freedom and the rule of law. There were times when King opposed government overreach as an impediment to responsible liberty and self-determination. By contrast, he embraced community, family, and spiritual solutions to social problems.
If King were alive today, he’d be pleased with some of the progress in race relations, but he would be appalled by activists who unjustifiably play the race card. King would be outraged by the divisiveness generated by the new definition of social justice. He’d likely be shocked at unbridled government spending and the colossal national debt that is $7 trillion more than last year’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). He may have even voiced approval of the economic writings of Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams.
During King’s brief vocation as a Baptist minister and civil rights champion, he trumpeted the causes of arduous work and self-improvement. His education and life mirrored the ideals of the American Dream, while he criticized many aspects of the welfare system.
Dependency as a way of life ran counter to the community and family values that King often preached about. Yet today, we witness a federal government doling out an array of entitlements that often discourage initiative, job growth, marriage, and upward mobility. King would be horrified that staggering numbers of folks in minority communities are in many cases worse off today than they were in his time, despite numerous government programs being implemented.
King was convinced that justice emanates from the heart, not from heavy-handed government policies that arbitrarily define fairness. He was a realist, but he never lost faith in blind justice for all races without fear or favor.
If King were alive today, he’d lecture politicians who speak with a forked tongue regarding income inequality while they live the high life on other people’s earnings. Moreover, he would likely criticize the “secular progressive” nanny state that rewards the indolent and punishes productivity and success.
