Martin Luther King, Jr. Day: What will you do?

Here we are again. Really, here we are, where we’ve always been. That weekend has arrived. What will you do? Will you celebrate?

Last year, we arrived at the 50^thAnniversary of one of the worst years in my personal memory, what should be remembered as one of the worst years in the history of this country. The civil war had been over for nearly a hundred years, but the war was not over, and civility had not been fully achieved. 

So, here we are, a year later and, my friends, I’m sorry to have to impart this to you (if you are not already aware), but the civil war is still not over. I’m loath to believe it, myself. I grieve to have to confess it. We are now more divided as a nation than we have ever been. A seething underbelly of irrational hatred has bubbled to the surface in hideous ways. We see it, we hear it, everywhere. The violence of irrational hatred is killing us and our children. The fear that breeds this irrational hatred seems all the rage, these days.

I have found, in my meanderings through this experience we call life, that once a good person has died, that person’s memory is held up for veneration. While that can be a very good thing and healthy way to deal with the pain of loss, it is a better thing if our veneration of that memory is an impetus to live up the example of the good that person embodied. 

Sadly, all too often our veneration is complicated, clouded or obscured by a tendency toward inactionon our part. This inaction takes two primary forms, both passive: adoration or “let’s have a party” (which must be the most empty form of acknowledgement). A day of service seems a better option, but what if this is merely an obligation ticked off a list, then set aside until next year? Commitment to change isn’t an event that can be handled in a few hours on a single day; this is daily work, a life’s work.

On this Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday (which commemorates the birthday of Dr. King, but is so terribly overshadowed by his violent death), what will you do?

During the past several years, I have shared with my readers memories and nuggets of wisdom I garnered from my late friend Arthur, a sociologist, really a political historian. When he passed away, he left behind various notes and references to books that he did not have in his own extensive library (a fact that will astonish anyone who’d ever been in Arthur’s library), but no outline, no paragraphs that could be expanded into a thesis, no solid leads for anyone to pursue toward a proposed writing project he had preliminarily titled, “Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Unfinished Journey.” Although we had frequently discussed King and his legacy, Arthur’s desire to write on the topic was not something we ever talked about in depth. This essay may contain a thread, weft to the warp, if you will, distilled from my interactions with Arthur.

In the years since Arthur passed away, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking and wondering about what Arthur might have brought forward. What would it have revealed, if anything? I have a few thoughts (what a surprise!) that I’ll share.

In a 1957 article for Christian Century, “Nonviolence and Racial Justice”, Dr. King wrote:

… The basic question which confronts the world’s oppressed is: How is the struggle against the forces of injustice to be waged? There are two possible answers. One is resort to the all too prevalent method of physical violence and corroding hatred. The danger of this method is its futility. Violence solves no social problems; it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Through the vistas of time a voice still cries to every potential Peter, “Put up your sword!" The shores of history are white with the bleached bones of nations and communities that failed to follow this command. If the American Negro and other victims of oppression succumb to the temptation of using violence in the struggle for justice, unborn generations will live in a desolate night of bitterness, and their chief legacy will be an endless reign of chaos.

Later, outlining aspects of Non-Violent Resistance, Dr. King states:

A third characteristic of this method is that the attack is directed against forces of evil rather than against persons who are caught in those forces. It is evil we are seeking to defeat, not the persons victimized by evil. Those of us who struggle against racial injustice must come to see that the basic tension is not between races… The tension… is not between white people and Negro people. The tension is at bottom between justice and injustice… [Emphasis mine.]

And he follows that with:

A fourth point that must be brought out concerning nonviolent resistance is that it avoids not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. At the center of nonviolence stands the principle of love. In struggling for human dignity the oppressed people of the worldmust not allow themselves to become bitter or indulge in hate campaigns. To retaliate with hate and bitterness would do nothing but intensify the hate in the world. [Emphasis mine.]

I propose that we pause, take stock and acknowledge that American culture and discourse in 2019 is the very embodiment of that thing Dr. King identified as danger, trap, and ultimate defeat. The struggle in this country is real, it is hateful, it is bitter and bloody—and it is inhuman. We’ve moved way beyond this being about race and class; identity politics has created new races and new classes, new reasons to have a chip on the shoulder, new ways to self-identify as a victim. With all these new divisions, we can all be offended victims, if we so choose. 

I will now entertain a notion that will instantly become unpopular because of it’s undeniable truth: Every step in time from the signing of the Civil Rights Act has been a step away from the obvious intent of equality and justice under the law for all people of the nation. 

Dr. King knew what was at stake in taking up the cause of justice for people of color: He knew that the mantle of equity had to cover the entire nation, all people. This is why he worked to create broad coalitions that included white people, religious people, workers, business leaders, politicians and others. That is what he did, to his dying day. 

What will you do, here, now, from this time forward?

For myself, I am taking time to reflect, reconcile, redress (where I can in the situations I encounter) and rehabilitate. Here are a few examples of what I mean, which I will expand upon through my personal, daily practice:

Reflection: Do I contribute to discourse and narratives that are unproductive? Do I assume I am right? Am truly I open to hear someone else’s wisdom, experience or pain. Is persistence or resistance appropriate to the present situation?

Reconcile: Do my actions and choices match the ethical views I claim? How can I be a factor in restoring unity or equilibrium in situations that occur in daily life? Am I either combative or non-confrontational in the way I handle challenges? How can I better work in cooperation with others toward a positive and joint outcome?

Redress: Can an appropriate remedy be found and implemented for a situation that is unfair or where a wrong has been done? Sometimes we make attempts that are patronizing or otherwise miss the mark; how can we be more sensitive to an appropriate response?

Rehabilitate: We have a lot of individual and collective work to do to vindicate, rebuild and restore people, communities, states of being, collective consciousness, the environment, integrity in our political narratives, truth to power. Where does it all begin? At home, at work, in your town, in our State, everywhere we are. There is much to done; we have to be willing to engage in the work, to strengthen our collective critical thought, and willing to welcome everyone to the party.

At the end of Dr. King’s article for Christian Century, within the context of non-violent resistance, he offers a prayer for us and for this work for human unity:

God grant that we wage the struggle with dignity and discipline. May all who suffer oppression in this world reject the self-defeating method of retaliatory violence and choose the method that seeks to redeem. Through using this method wisely and courageously we will emerge from the bleak and desolate midnight of man’s inhumanity to man into the bright daybreak of freedom and justice.

Don’t let this be just another holiday weekend. I think the very best way to honor the memory of Dr. King is to continue the journey his untimely death thwarted, to build a world with no double standards, where each person is entitled to and equally accorded dignity, opportunity and justice. 

Keep the dream alive, and make it come true; nothing less will do.

___

Source: Christian Century74 (6 February 1957): 165-167.

Representation and Misrepresentation in our Democratic Republic

A few years ago, a mentor and friend of mine passed away. He’d been a professor of Sociology and his specialization was politics; he’s been described by many colleagues, students and admirers as a political historian. It would be a surprise to most people to learn that the primary way in which he came to study politics was by way of exploring utopian fiction.

The word “utopia” actually means “nowhere.” To me, that is the greatest inside joke, ever. People are constantly dreaming up models for what they consider to be the “ideal society,” but these are mostly “nowhere” as in impossible (with a stilted sense of what is reasonably to be expected of real human beings), and most such literary experiments often come prepackaged with what can be readily identified as their Damoclean dystopian counterpart. 

My friend politically identified himself as a democratic socialist. His notion of a better world was one where the culture, morals and politics are shaped as a grassroots effort from below, from among the masses. This notion is not best served by the concept of direct democracy, but recognizes that a system that intends and proclaims fairness and equity to all must afford a great degree of representation.

We are, after all, currently living in a bureaucratic collectivist society, here in the United States. The constitution, upon more modern consideration, is logically intended to apply to all people, and those who run for political office have sworn to represent their constituents and uphold the ideas and ideals of the constitution. The fact that governance does not seem to currently serve that end is just cause for people to quite rightly ask, “Has democracy died?”

My friend’s personal credo was “No double standards.” He had been brought up in a family that tended toward socialism and progressivism. Socialist ideas were to be found everywhere in the United States. The Midwest, now so very conservative, was once a bastion of socialism, with support for labor, as well as a breeding ground for experimental programs and organizations that were designed to work in the public interest. Some may be surprised to read that, but it is true, despite the fact that socialism has been made a dirty word for such a long time. If you need proof of this, here is a link you can follow for a summary of the long, rich history of socialism in America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_socialist_movement_in_the_United_States

Transcendentalism, New Deal, labor unions, Dorothy Day, Catholic Worker Movement, Civil Rights Movement, Wobblies, the New Left – all these and more are aspects of what could be called the American Socialist Tendency, just another name for movements espousing a philosophy and politics supporting social education and programs to help bring people of all classes up.

These, along with many other leaders, organizations and movements, were reactions in large part to the negative role of rampant capitalism in society, the wage disparity and grinding poverty that was in such contrast to the high flying lifestyle of the very rich. Although the constitution is clearly meant to apply to all citizens, the fact that in every generation, any segment of society that could not be identified as “male landowners” has had to fight for recognition and rights under the constitution has been disappointing, to say the least. That laws have clearly, especially to the present day, been used against people who are powerless, many times for the benefit of people with power among the wealthy upper class, or for an empty, “state” victory, goes clearly against the framers’ claim for us all to have the experience of “Justice …  domestic Tranquility … common defence … general Welfare … Blessings of Liberty,” etc.

No matter what some choose to believe, the values that our history of socialist tendencies represent are actually inextricably woven into the fabric of our administrative state, in every federal social program that still exists to benefit individuals in need.

The president’s oath of office reads:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, (so help me God).

One doesn’t need a Ph.D. or be an attorney to be aware that this oath has been broken in many more ways than one, and that partisan brinkmanship has set a course to unravel every progressive step made since at least the Haymarket Riot of 1886. The current administration is trying to bring to life Hobbes’ Leviathan, but probably not to protect the state, and certainly not to preserve the constitution. The interesting thing about twenty-first century capitalism is that it is global, and the war being waged on our shores has significant repercussions both here and everywhere abroad; it’s all about money and power, consolidating it for a self-interested, blindly unethical multinational oligarchic elite. Simultaneously, in other parts of that same global system, other countries are working at crossed purpose toward more ethical statesmanship, making capitalism toe the line.

Getting back to the utopias, I find it interesting that so many of them have top-down ruling classes, and so few have leadership from below, as if qualified people from every class should not be allowed to come together to form governance from where the people are. If it seems whimsical of me to make this observation, we have only to look at the daily news to see that we have reached a point in our Democratic Republic where there is an out-of-touch ruling class making decisions about a diverse populace that it neither understands, nor cares to do so.

The lack of any strong third party or even fourth party, the destruction of party membership, indulging in identity politics rather than cultivating coalition unity, the reduction of party conventions to a rah-rah rubberstamping event, instead of a platform building with caucus representation and ratification, these have contributed to the current condition. You see, what is gone is the representative part of our representative government – where we told the party what we wanted, what we needed, what was good for us, and they worked toward those goals. Those people we elect to office are supposed to vote according to our wishes and for our benefit, not in lockstep partisan obeisance to a petty, populist tyrant. Instead, those representatives are vetted and selected from party leaders to do what is good for them and to our detriment. The bipartisan brinksmanship has now been sown into every branch of the government that “checks and balances” were meant protect against. Don't think the leaders of your party haven't contributed to this state of affairs. It is almost like we don't have parties, at all; it could be the party of one, such as in the 1921 dystopian novel "We" by Yevgeny Zamyatin. 

Choice, we are told we have choice. I see hundreds of bottles of different shampoos to choose from in the stores – none of which are good for my hair – but I don’t have the power to choose representatives that will vote for and protect my interests. Our economy is being driven forward so it can be carved out by the oligarchs, pushing more people to homelessness and destitution with stagnant wages and ever-rising, frequently falsely inflated costs. No one thinks about it, but that is a means of voter suppression, driving people out of homes and into the streets; that’s a species of gerrymandering, isn’t it?

So, here we are:  UTOPIA! And, oh, isn’t it fun? The daily outrages are a laugh a minute.

What are we going to do? What can we do?

We must resist, and we can. Educate, organize, vote, and hold elected officials accountable. Public opinion is not enough to affect a referendum, but in this modern world of endless media and technological manipulations, public opinion might sometimes be the only tool in the kit. Protecting and subscribing to and reading real news is vital. Engaging in real and fair discussions is vital. Listening is vital, too. We cannot surrender to cynicism, but we must strive for and participate in rationality. We must obliterate lies with the truth.

My late friend’s widow, also my friend and an activist herself, has this quote by Margaret Mead at the end of each email message, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it’s the only thing that ever has.”

We must do everything in our power to make that true.