We celebrate his holiday and put his picture everywhere and deliver our hosannahs, but there’s still a striking amount of ignorance regarding the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr. The ignorance is on the right, of course: acknowledging the full depth of King’s achievement means in some way agreeing with the progressive project (and the modern Trump wing will have nothing to do with freedom, equality, justice, etc… it’s all about gettin’ the libs!). But ignorance is on the left, too, because saluting King completely means also saluting the American project, something very few progressives seem willing to do in our post-post-post modern age.
Think about the last time there was a riot, how you probably looked on Facebook and saw that King quote, the one about the riot being “the speech of the oppressed.” The person posting it probably thought he was a scoring a win for anarchy in the streets. But you don’t have to read deeply into “Chaos or Community” to see exactly where King falls on that particular issue:
“There is something painfully sad about a riot. One sees screaming youngsters and angry adults fighting hopelessly and aimlessly against impossible odds. Deep down within them you perceive a desire for self-destruction, a suicidal longing. Occasionally Negroes contend that the 1965 Watts riot and the other riots in various cities represented effective civil rights action. But those who express this view always end up with stumbling words when asked what concrete gains have been won as a result. At best the riots have produced a little additional antipoverty money, allotted by frightened government officials, and a few water sprinklers to cool the children of the ghettos. It is something like improving the good in a prison while the people remain securely incarcerated behind bars.”
What King was interested in was achieving democracy. What he understood deeply was that getting there requires political power, and that acquiring political power means forming consensus with Americans. Forming consensus does not mean compromising! It does not mean selling out! King again and again falls down on the side of nonviolence, again and again insists (contrary to the white moderate) that “improvement” is no substitute for justice, again and again acknowledges the deep psychological scars of racism that have affected individuals both black and white. He was, in a word, principled. But his most basic principle, I think, is love, and love will not tolerate riots, or violence, or vigilantism, or separatism, or giving up on our country’s democratic heritage.
We underrate his vision. It’s still radical as hell: can you recall any other leader in the past fifty years who based their entire political stance around love? We (the good people of the left) seem to think that our betterment involves adopting a European model, a communistic model, a model espoused by some dead French academic. What King proposes is an American model, one that uses our most unique feature-- our racial, religious, and sociocultural diversity-- as its engine.
And how damn inspiring he is, compared to the contemporary internet leftist! Everyone knows “I Have a Dream,” because it’s great… What’s even better about “Chaos or Community” is how it ties the dream to a realistic assessment of the civil right movement, and offers thoughtful, still-intriguing solutions to the problems of war, poverty, poor education, and joblessness. He makes process sound beautiful; when we organize and do political change right, it is beautiful. When he disagrees with one of his cohorts in the freedom movement, he does so in the spirit of vigorous debate. Perhaps because he was a true Christian, he refuses to look at his political enemies as sinners worthy of excommunication, but rather as misguided souls who need to be brought into the fold of racial harmony. To see the way the consensus on the contemporary left is formed now-- I.e. via bullying on social media, and labeling certain ideas as taboo, and backbiting each other even while the entire federal government is run by conservative maniacs-- would surely alarm King.
In the last couple of pages of “Chaos or Community,” he discusses what hinges on the success of the democratic project. In a world of nuclear weapons, endless war, ever-increasing economic equality, the threat of automation (which King mentions several times), and climate change (King doesn’t mention this, but you have to believe he would fully get behind the climate justice movement), your eyes are supposed to be on the prize. For King, the prize was a society where black people had authentic political power-- where they were embedded in government, respected in their communities, valued for their humanity-- and where they, and their white cohorts, used power wisely. “Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice. Justice at its best is love correcting everything that stands against love.”
So yeah, this is a great book, and it makes me think that we might underrate King as a writer, too. I think we are inclined to see him first and foremost as a speaker, and there’s no question he was a killer rhetorician. His words come alive on the page though, too, through his intelligence, his well-chosen references, his graceful sentences, his instinct for narrative (his history of “White Backlash” seems definitive for 1967, though obviously a lot of lashing has happened since then). He uses the diction and cadences of the great American writers, the Whitmans and the Baldwins, the men and women who connected the personal and the political with such detail and passion.
America was fortunate to have him-- America NEEDED to have him-- and fifty years later after his senseless murder, we need now, perhaps more than ever, to heed his words and honor his vision.