Friday, April 04, 2008

Compare and Contrast: TNGOP vs. MLK, Jr.

You could also consider this a compare and contrast between revisionist history and actual history:
Dr. King exhorted America to fully become a place where people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, and his fellow Republicans responded by passing Civil Rights legislation over the objection of many Democrats of that era.

The wistful hopes of the Republican Party for large city influence will also be decided not in the board rooms of great corporations but in the teeming ghettos. Its 1964 disaster with Goldwater, in which fewer than 6% of Negroes voted Republican, indicates that the illustrious ghost of Abraham Lincoln is not sufficient for winning Negro confidence, not so long as the party fails to shrink the influence of its ultra-right wing.
The growing Negro vote in the South is another source of power. As it weakens and enfeebles the dixiecrats ... it undermines the congressional coalition of southern reactionaries and their northern Republican colleagues ....
The future of the deep structural changes we seek ... lies in new alliances of Negroes, Puerto Ricans, labor, liberals, certain church and middle-class elements.
- -Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go From Here?

So, who is more believable? TNGOP on MLK, Jr. or MLK, Jr. on MLK, Jr.?


  1. Where's the revising? Was he not a Republican? Were Republicans not overwhelmingly (moreso than Dems) supportive of the Civil Rights Act?

  2. It's revisionist because King clearly identified with liberals and set himself apart from Republicans. TNGOP is ignoring the separation that was put in King's own words. They're being vicious, as in twisting the truth.