Had
he lived, Martin Luther King, Jr. would have turned 90 this past week. As the nation celebrates his birthday, it is
easy to honor King as a champion of civil rights, perhaps even easy to note that
in 2019 America risks losing some of the gains he championed.
But
it is much harder for us to actually honor him as our national prophet--as America’s
conscience--because that means honoring all the causes he stood for. And those causes taken together, have not merely
lost ground; they have nearly disappeared from our public discourse.
Let
me survey what King called the “three great evils,” and ask two questions: What would King say now? And: Who in our public life still speaks for
King?
Racial Injustice. Most celebrations honoring King focus on him
as leader of the civil rights movement.
And surely a key message in his mission was that people be judged not “by
the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” By 1968 King
had witnessed many gains, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting
Rights Act. And since then, African-Americans
have continued many gains.
Still,
were King alive today he might well say that too often people continue to be
judged by the color of their skin, whether in efforts to suppress black votes,
or in cases of police shooting unarmed Blacks, or in the rollback of the Voting
Rights Act itself.
And
more recently the challenge of accepting people of color has increasingly
focused, not only on the descendants of slaves, but also on immigrants and
their children (indeed, our first Black president was the son of an immigrant,
not the descendant of slaves). And while
King did not face the same issues over immigration that we face now, it’s easy
to know what he might say--in fact he already actually said it:
“We may all
have come from different ships, but we're in the same boat now."
Indeed,
by the end of his career King would be increasingly clear that the evil of
racism was not just a problem for U.S. blacks, but for all those oppressed by
others:
“In one sense the civil rights movement in the United
States is a special American phenomenon which must be understood in the light
of American history and dealt with in terms of the American situation. But on
another and more important level, what is happening in the United States today
is a relatively small part of a world development.”
Looking
around today, King might well say we remain far from fulfilling the goal of
racial justice for all.
Inequality. In later years King spoke more and more about
economic inequality. He often called it “poverty,”
since up to 1968 the middle class was still gaining in wages and benefits, so
it made sense to focus on those below the poverty line. But since King’s death, the U.S. has seen
nearly 50 years of steadily declining real wages even for the middle class, and
we now see a wealth gap worse than any time since the great depression of the
1930s. So when King spoke of poverty, he
said:
“Why are there forty million poor people in America? And
when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the
economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth.’ When you ask that
question, you begin to question the capitalistic economy.”
This
question of a “broader distribution of wealth” has changed since his death,
with fewer below the poverty line but more struggling to make ends meet as
wealth has been even more concentrated.
This makes King’s view not less, but even more timely. Today he would surely repeat these words:
“Call it democracy, or call it democratic socialism, but
there must be a better distribution of wealth within this country for all God’s
children... God never intended for one group of people to live in superfluous
inordinate wealth, while others live in abject deadening poverty.”
War. King lost many supporters
and became an even more controversial figure when he campaigned against the
Vietnam War. Even other civil rights
leaders felt this was not his role. But
they did not realize that, for King, this was the inevitable result of his own
growing vision.
Once
he decided that nonviolence was the key to fighting racism, and once he
incorporated the theories of Gandhian nonviolence into his own Christian
theology, that naturally altered his views on war, as he moved from a “just war”
perspective to pacifism. He called this his
“pilgrimage to nonviolence”:
“I felt that while war could never be a positive good,
it could serve as a negative good by preventing the spread and growth of an
evil force. War, horrible as it is, might be preferable to surrender to a
totalitarian system. But now I believe that the potential destructiveness of
modern weapons totally rules out the possibility of war ever again achieving a
negative good.”
Indeed,
King seemed to know that without a concerted anti-war strategy, the threat of
mass destruction would spread. Today’s
worries about North Korea, Iran, and the U.S. abandoning the INF treaty all
echo King’s warning:
“Nations are not reducing but rather increasing their
arsenals of weapons of mass destruction. The best brains in the highly
developed nations of the world are devoted to military technology. The
proliferation of nuclear weapons has not been halted…On the contrary, the
detonation of an atomic device by the first nonwhite, non-Western, and
so-called underdeveloped power, namely the Chinese People’s Republic, opens new
vistas of exposure of vast multitudes, the whole of humanity, to insidious
terrorization by the ever-present threat of annihilation.”
When
accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, King made his rejection of militarism
clear:
“I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation
after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of nuclear
annihilation... I believe that even amid today's mortar bursts and whining
bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow... I still believe that
one day mankind will bow before the altars of God and be crowned triumphant
over war and bloodshed.”
I
have no doubt that he would say matters now have only become worse. Since 9/11 the U.S. has engaged in multiple,
seemingly endless wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and elsewhere. And unlike
the Vietnam era, these wars are not even especially controversial. In the 1960s a band of public leaders loudly
opposed U.S. war policy: King, Robert F. Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern,
and many others. In 2019, who are the
public leaders opposing our warlike foreign policy?
Yet
our troop deployments and arms sales (not to mention defense pending) far
outstrip all other nations. It is as if
Americana have accepted that war is inevitable and peace is impossible. King
would disagree:
“World peace through non-violent means is neither
absurd nor unattainable. All other methods have failed. Thus we must begin
anew. Non-violence is a good starting point.”
For Catholics today, King’s views are important
for three reasons.
First, his views on race, economic
inequality, and peace fit almost exactly with Catholic Social Teaching of the
last 50 years--especially with the teachings of the last four popes. You can look it up!
Second, King agrees with the Church
that these three issues are linked:
“We must see now that the evils of racism,
economic exploitation and militarism are all tied together…you can’t really get
rid of one without getting rid of the others…the whole structure of American
life must be changed.”
Third, King’s vision of the
contemporary world exactly matches the Catholic vision emerging from Vatican Council
II (1962-1965). The Council saw
technological progress as the hallmark of modern life, and praised such
progress but offered this caution: technological progress confers new power,
but the good use of that power requires a matching progress in wisdom
and goodness.
Here
is how King saw the same “moral lag”:
“Through our scientific and technological genius, we
have made of this world a neighborhood and yet we have not had the ethical
commitment to make of it a brotherhood. But somehow, and in some way, we have
got to do this.”
For
King, as for Vatican II, this “moral lag” is at the root of what he calls the
world’s three great evils:
“This problem of spiritual and moral lag, which
constitutes modern man’s chief dilemma, expresses itself in three larger
problems which grow out of man’s ethical infantilism. Each of these problems,
while appearing to be separate and isolated, is inextricably bound to the
other. I refer to racial injustice, poverty, and war.”
And
for King, as for Vatican II, the challenge lies in our moral progress catching
up to our technological progress:
“Mankind’s
survival is dependent upon man’s ability to solve the problems of racial
injustice, poverty, and war; the solution of these problems is in turn
dependent upon man squaring his moral progress with his scientific progress,
and learning the practical art of living in harmony”
Based
on his own words, then, King’s voice still speaks to our time, much the way Catholic
Social Teaching does. Taken together,
they represent our brightest wisdom and our clearest hope--but who will champion
of such vision?
On
a day when many seek to fence in King’s legacy to narrow questions of race, we
should rededicate ourselves to his broader cause of waging nonviolent combat
against racism, inequality, and militarism.
© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2019
