Third Party & Independents Archives

Can Civil Rights Icons Suffer From TDS?

Who carries the legacy of Martin Luther King? His own wife and son? Or John Lewis? As this year’s MLK Day comes and goes, the question is not just topical. It’s not just about the peaceful transition of power, but whether Donald Trump will be accepted as the freely elected President of the United States of America, by those on the left who still cannot come to terms with his victory last November.

Does this depend on what part of Martin Luther King's rhetoric one focuses on? Peter Myers, writing in The Federalist, prefers to remember the Christian orator who gave America some of it's most moving moments in political speech. Even while acknowledging King's more radical side, especially the speeches in 1967 and 1968. For him, the best of MLK is in the leader of non-violent protests who combined Ghandi's tactics with his own Christian faith and skilled and incendiary oratory.

Kali Holloway, writing in Salon, instead comes across with radical zeal, and points angrily at the revolutionary that MLK was in her view, serving up 10 rabble-rousing quotes as a slap in the face of any (of us) complacent white moderates who might be moved by Martin Luther King's more forgiving and spiritually inspiring quotes.

So John Lewis, who suffered the violence as part of King's marches and who carried on with his civil rights organizing and on into politics, is the martyr and the fighter. And far closer in spirit to the angry, radical MLK. And thus beyond reproach. Lewis got his skulled cracked by racist thugs (true). So you can't argue with him (false). And if you do argue with him you're a racist thug.

And that's the whole damn point. If you take the radical view of Martin Luther King - like Kali Holloway - then racism is as bad as ever in America, and if you're white you better shut up and listen. Especially if Representative J. Lewis is doing the talking.

If you take a different view of MLK - as his widow did, and now his son MLK III seem to have done - then you are willing to meet with and talk to and listen to President-Elect Trump. And while their meeting at Trump Tower was symbolically powerful, it's Representative J. Lewis who is the congressman, and who has convinced about 30 other Democrat members of Congress to skip the inauguration of Trump. MLK III comes to talk, while Rep. Lewis comes to tell the media that he won't be talking to or working with Trump.

But the main reason Lewis gave for questioning the legitimacy of Trump's election and presidency, was not veiled accusations of racism - although those have been thrown at Trump constantly by Lewis and his allies on the left - but rather Lewis' view that Russia engineered the election results. Even if Lewis switched allegiances from Hillary to Barack back in the middle of the 2008 primaries, he's now furious that Hillary lost last November. And he blames the Russians.

But you can't blame a civil rights icon of suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome. That would make you a racist thug. And no one wants to be called that. Especially those of Lewis' Democrat colleagues who wish he would shut up, but are too scared to speak up.

Posted by AllardK at January 17, 2017 11:02 PM
Comments
Comment #412365

AllardK asks; “Who carries the legacy of Martin Luther King?”

Great question with no answer to be found in just a few individuals. Millions of Americans respect what King said, did and accomplished. They are the legacy.

Your question could be asked about Ronald Reagan. Many of the most prominent people wearing Reagan on their sleeve today are the same ones who tried to silence him and his political beliefs when he sought office.

Invoking King’s or Reagan’s name today is supposed to be enough to convince others of what we believe in and support. The problem is that many will say one thing and do another. I find repudiation of King’s beliefs among both prominent and ordinary Black people and the same regarding Regan and prominent and ordinary White people.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 18, 2017 3:54 PM
Comment #412369

Obama scores the worst legislative record in history

“The president was never good at reaching across the aisle. So when the composition of Congress changed relative to what it was in his first two years, he wasn’t able to accommodate that very well,” said Andrew Busch, a presidential scholar at Claremont McKenna College in California. “He never accustomed himself to operating in a system where he was not the sole player.”

By comparison, they pointed to the final two years under President George W. Bush, when Democrats controlled Congress and found ways to work on a number of big issues. Indeed, the 110th Congress placed in the top third in The Times index, passing a major energy bill, a first stab at an economic stimulus, a minimum wage increase and a new GI bill to send veterans from the war on terrorism back to school.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/17/president-obama-scores-poorly-working-congress-leg/

Obama’s failure to find ways to work with congress leaves his legacy of executive action open for Trump to repeal with a simple signing. Hurrah!

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 18, 2017 5:12 PM
Comment #412379

When Trump got elected and while he was initiating a number of notable actions I heard people say things that they never said when Obama got elected. I’ve heard people express heartfelt hope, not a slogan. To me, there was this aura that something is different, something meaningful has happened. That’s what I’ve heard from others also.

At the same time, others were saying that Republicans have to reach across the aisle and come together. I was wondering, “Why?”. How much credibility would either side have if it all stayed the same? What he said during his campaign was the same thing half the country was thinking. Trump said we were going to get tired of winning and we started winning. Money is coming back into play.

I asked myself, when’s the last time I felt really hopeful? I had to say it was when Ronald Reagan ran against a 17% interest rate and 20%+ inflation and the Barbary pirates’ sabre rattling. Otherwise it’s been Democratics and the media pummeling anyone who got in their way. Why compromise with that? Democratics don’t deserve compromise, because they don’t offer hope that’s not attached to political gain.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 18, 2017 7:26 PM
Comment #412380

Rule by executive order is a form of tyranny and fortunately, in this country, easily undone with election victories.

Our Founders designed a government that works best when compromise and bargaining produces legislation that a president, desiring the best for all the people, can sign.

I am willing to compromise providing it does not violate my core political and religious principles. A good compromise, where many people benefit, and no people are harmed, will receive my endorsement.

We can hope that Mr. Trump will be this kind of president.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 18, 2017 7:43 PM
Comment #412388
others were saying that Republicans have to reach across the aisle and come together. I was wondering, “Why?”

Because fewer people voted for Trump than for Hillary Clinton. Fewer people voted for Republican Senatorial candidates than Democratic ones. There is no consensus of support for the Republican platform as polling clearly indicates that this is still a center-left nation.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 19, 2017 10:37 AM
Comment #412391

People voted for Republicans in the House and the Senate. This is your precious 17th amendment at work, and they voted for a Republican Senate. The Electoral College reflects that and elected a Republican president. Why should Democratics feel entitled to call the shots?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 19, 2017 11:43 AM
Comment #412393

Democrats aren’t entitled to call the shots. Neither side has a mandate to enact an agenda unilaterally. Compromise and consensus are needed.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 19, 2017 11:52 AM
Comment #412394

Why didn’t you say that 8 years ago?

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 19, 2017 11:54 AM
Comment #412395

Obama won 54% of the popular vote and voters awarded Democrats with 59 Senators in 2008, neither of these were accomplished by Republicans last November.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 19, 2017 12:04 PM
Comment #412396

Maybe I should clarify. Democrats had a mandate to enact their platform in 2009 because they not only won, but did so in an overwhelming landslide. That is not the case today.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 19, 2017 12:08 PM
Comment #412401

“Democrats had a mandate to enact their platform in 2009…”

Warren, here are the major goals of that platform. Please tell us which, if any, of them has been accomplished.

Improve education
Provide good jobs
Provide good wages
LIVE IN SAFE SURROUNDINGS
Provide dignity and security in retirement
Health care as a “basic right”
Each generation should have a brighter future than the last.
Abandon the politics of partisan division
Creative solutions to promote the common good
Champion the interests of all American families

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2017 2:35 PM
Comment #412403

Why Royal do you guys continue to believe the lies created by conservative propaganda. The whole world knows the Repub majority in Congress stated their top goal was to obstruct Obama.
“If he is for it we had to be against it” was the battle cry.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-details-on-the-gop-plot-to-obstruct-obama/

Posted by: j2t2 at January 19, 2017 2:57 PM
Comment #412404

What prompted that question for me j2t2? Was it my answer to Warrens comment…”Democrats had a mandate to enact their platform in 2009…”

Starting January 2009, at the beginning of the 111th Congress, in the month that Barack Obama was inaugurated president, the House of Representatives was made up of 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans.

On January 20th, 2009, 57 Senate seats were held by Democrats with 2 Independents (Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman) caucusing with the Democrats…which gave Democrats 59 mostly-reliable Democratic votes in the Senate, one shy of filibuster-proof “total control.” Republicans held 41 seats.

Perhaps j2t2 can help Warren describe all the Democrat platform goals accomplished with the Democrat majority house and senate with their election “mandate”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2017 3:14 PM
Comment #412405

Dodd-Frank, PPACA, Lilly Ledbetter, ARRA, End of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell…

Appointment of two Supreme Court Justices committed to upholding the Constitution and protecting the rights of ALL Americans as well as numerous lower court judges.

More Americans are working today than in 2009. Median wages are up. Deficits are down. We’ve enjoyed the longest economic expansion in over a hundred years.

Obama kept us safe from foreign terrorists, he ended the Iranian nuclear weapons program, he opened relations with Cuba and US military casualties abroad are now nearly zero. Crime rates under Obama were lower than any other President since Eisenhower.

Posted by: Warren Porter at January 19, 2017 3:55 PM
Comment #412406

It’s Button-Bustin’ time for Warren recounting what he considers political good which occurred in the past eight years.

I disagree about “good” with much of the list Warren. I will give just one simple example…”Deficits are down”. Gosh, doesn’t that sound wonderful? What a great achievement.

We hope no one asks about the rising national debt in the same period caused by the greatest deficits in my memory. Warren’s little claim about deficits is akin to bragging about reducing “the wife beatings”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2017 4:42 PM
Comment #412408
Perhaps j2t2 can help Warren describe all the Democrat platform goals accomplished with the Democrat majority house and senate with their election “mandate”.

Sure can Royal IN fact lets get a quote about the 111th Congress “This Congress has been considered one of the most productive Congresses in history in terms of legislation passed since the 89th Congress,…”

It seems you have a different view of good but then if Obama and the Dems would have cured cancer you would have complained they put some Doctors out of business. You also seem to have forgotten the great recession that was handed to Obama by the previous administration despite conservative myth to the contrary.


Which was my point You seem to have forgotten the last 6 years of mostly repub controlled Congress, so as a reminder -

“It was also the first Congress since 1947 in which no member of the Kennedy family served, and it was viewed as one of the most politically polarized Congress since Reconstruction, and the least productive since the Second World War, with record low approval ratings.[5]”


I would ask why you and many other Americans would vote to keep the same crew in place when they are the one’s that didn’t legislate. Lets remember who administrates and who legislates.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 19, 2017 6:09 PM
Comment #412410

j2t2 brags about how “productive” the 111th Congress was. OK, how much did that cost?

The federal government accumulated more new debt—$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)—during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.

That equals $10,429.64 in new debt for each and every one of the 308,745,538 people counted in the United States by the 2010 Census.

Perhaps our Leftie Pal j2 will regale us with the wonderful things purchased with those trillions. Is he happy owing another $10,500 thanks to just two years of Democrats controlling all three branches of government?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2017 7:29 PM
Comment #412413
The federal government accumulated more new debt—$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)—during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.

Why not something intelligent Royal, this red herring you are spouting is BS, like how much it costs to get the country out of an economic depression in 2008? Certainly the same can be said about GWB and Reagan if you really want to go down this road. Instead lets figure out why our elected leaders thought it necessary….oh yeah starve the beast…..Laffler didn’t work then lets keep trying. Or here is what they are saying in Davos…

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-founder-jack-ma-brutal-135400213.html

Posted by: j2t2 at January 19, 2017 8:37 PM
Comment #412444

“…this red herring you are spouting is BS.”

j2, are you capable of explaining why?

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 21, 2017 7:54 PM
Post a comment