More High-Quality Thought From National Review's Electronic Archives

National Review on Martin Luther King, Jr., back in 1959. Did you know that in the pages of National Review Martin Luther King was a really lousy public speaker?

The soberly-dressed "clerky" little man... seemed oddly unsuited to his unmentioned but implicit role of propagandist.... Let me say at once, for the benefit of the wicked, fearful South, that Martin Luther King wil never rouse a rabble; in fact, I doubt very much if he could keep a rabble awake... past its bedtime... lecture... delivered with all the force and fervor of the five-year-old who nightly recites: "Our Father, Who art in New Haven, Harold be Thy name."...

The history of Negro freedom in the United States... according to Dr. King, is actually a history of Supreme Court decisions... in each of these decisions "the Supreme Court gave validity to the prevailing mores of the times." (That's how they decide, you see? They look up the prevailing mores--probably in the Sunday New York Times.)...

In the future, [according to King] the reactionary white south will try.... Nevertheless, victory is inevitable for the Good Guys.... The Negro must... expect suffering and sacrifice, which he must resist without sacrifice, for this kind of resistance will leqve the violent segregationist "glutted with his own barbarity. Forced to stand before the world and his God splattered with the blood and reeking with the stench of his Negro brother, he will call an end to his self-defeating massacre." (I don't think [King had] really examined that one, do you?)...

In the words of an editorial from next morning's Yale Daily News, "a bearded white listener rose, then a whole row, and then a standing ovation." Did you ever see a standing ovation rise? It's most interesting! Anyway, I rose and applauded heartily. I was applauding Dr. King for not saying "the trusth shall make you free," because actually it took the Supreme Court, in this case, didn't it?...

[A] discussion period for undergraduates followed the lecture.... Here was no trace of the sing-song "culluh'd preachuh" chant, the incongruously gaudy phrases.... Martin Luther King... relies almost entirely on force of one kind or another to accomplish integration.... [I]t seems curiously inconsistent to hear him, time after time, suggest power, or force--the force of labor, of legislation, of federal strength--as the solution....

Comments

[Ereshkigal]

How charming that subsequent National Review contributors have been able to retain the supercilious, patronizing tone of the earlier volumes.

They still aim far off the mark, too--which may partially account for the low numbers of NR conservatives currently serving in the armed forces.

[Abe]

as for "supercilious, patronizing tone," right on. I hate that shit. Don't hint at it -- just come out and say what you mean -- "black people are ridiculous" or "you lot think equality is good but we know better." And they're still at it. I've seen three year old act condescending. You win zero points with that.

On the flip side, I have similar problems with Chomsky. If you pin him down on what economic system he does approve of, he'll mention something about anarchist Barcelona.

[Bruce Moomaw]

Oh, Brad. Just wait until you get to John Greenway's pieces in the 1969 through 1979 issues, if you want to see something to make your eyeballs bug out. Or, for that matter, W.H. von Dreele's explicitly racist poems from 1960 through (at least) the early 1980s.

Meanwhile, by the early 1980s, Buckley had switched to advocating King's birthday as a federal holiday (although, in the interests of equal time, Von Dreele was still comparing him to Father Divine). The trouble with NR is that -- despite all its complaints about those awful liberals who confuse conservatism with fascism, racism and social Darwinism -- it itself has always done a magnificent job of confusing them in the same way.

[Depressed]

And these are the clowns whom the current clowns make look good.

[kth]

>>>I was applauding Dr. King for not saying "the truth shall make you free," because actually it took the Supreme Court, in this case, didn't it?...<<<

So many unintended ironies in one tiny passage: a little NR toff, with his bowtie and straw-boater, impugning the courage of apartheid-era black Americans, presumably because they didn't go all Nat Turner on people like himself. Like NR Guy belonged to some freaking warrior caste or something.

But most of all: King meant, like Jesus, that the truth would set everyone free; not just the oppressed, but the oppressor as well. And of course it didn't occur to NR Guy that his own freedom might be illusory.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Prof. DeLong is becoming obsessed with beating long dead horses.

It was Democrat governors who stood in schoolhouse doors, Democrat sheriffs who turned the dogs loose, and a Democrat President (JFK) who was timid on civil rights.

It was the odd couple, Hubert Humphrey and the redneck, roughneck LBJ who did the tough work on civil rights.

There is enough embarassment in the 50s for both ends of the political spectrum.

[Bruce Moomaw]

Rusty, the point is that NR was enthusiastic about racism whether it was spouted by Democrats OR Republicans. In fact, one of their declared reasons for having a soft spot for Adlai Stevenson was that he was a major believer in "states' rights" and didn't seem very interested in black civil rights. (By 1968 they had softened to the point of saying in an editorial that Wallace's racism was one reason for voting against him for President -- the other, which they described as equally important, being that his economic policies resembled Hubert Humphrey's.)

As for the political parties, before the 1960s the Democratic Party as a sum total was indeed neutral on the subject of black civil rights. So was the GOP. When the Dems finally got their act together and started actively pushing civil rights, the GOP -- or a landslide majority of it -- promptly decided to actively oppose it as part of the "Southern Strategy". (In Goldwater's immortal phrase, "going hunting where the ducks are". Or, in this case, the vultures.)

Oh, and Brad: wait until you get to their editorial on the JFK assassination. You have endless delights ahead of you.

[dilbert dogbert]

Rust,
Thank god those doorway standers are now good republicans.
Just remember if Strom had his way we never would have had this unpleasantness.

[Ralph]

"It was Democrat governors who stood in schoolhouse doors, Democrat sheriffs who turned the dogs loose, and a Democrat president who was timid on civil rights." But after Nixon exploited the long drawn fissure between the liberal Democrats and the Dixiecrats, the party fell apart or rather sorted itself apart with the majority of white Southern Dixiecrats joining their true home, the racist Republican party. Thus was born the new polarized American political system. This has predictably become more polarized as the South dominates an increasingly radical right wing Republican party driving out moderates who formed the heart of the Eisenhower-Rockefeller Republican wing. A few moderates remain in the party through habit and loyalty but not conviction. Examples such as Chris Shays, John McCain, Arlen Spector find their influence dwindling every year. JFK may have been timid because he was afraid that the Republicans would exploit the natural fissure that was evident to all and he was concerned of the unpredictableness of the situation.

[ilsm]

Rust,

Lincoln was republican they never forgave them.

Until Nixon "won" them over.

It was 110 years before the ole south went and forgive the republicans.

Dems in power did not mean the republicans were any less interested in garnering an in. RFK did more for the republican party in the south than Nixon.

[J Lawrence]

Brad,
You are always bitchiing about how bad the National Review is. Any reasonable person who has ever skimmed at a single issue of this magazine should realise it. I do not understand WHY you of all people think it is a magazine which warrants your attention. They have always been bigotted, shameful people. Do not read their filth. End of story.

[Bruce Moomaw]

But it's such INFLUENTIAL filth nowadays...

[Barry]

J Lawrence, it's important because this is not something that they've really repented of; if necessary, they'll disavow it before going back there.

[CapitalistImperialistPig]

Since your trackback doesn't seem to be working right at the moment, I mention that I comment briefly on your post at the address below.

[sglover]

I like a good paleocon skewering as much as the next guy, but I've got a feeling that a perusal of, say, 1930's issues of "The Nation" might have some cringe-worthy swooning over the economic miracle going on in the Ukraine, maybe along with a reverential piece about the *size* of those Magnitogorsk blast furnaces. There are skeletons in practically all political closets, I think....

In unrelated news, last night I dreamed I was in a restaurant booth, having a conversation with Richard Perle, which is pretty damn disconcerting on a lot of levels. Yikes!

[Barry]

Rusty the Republican, the correct term is 'Democratic'; the only people who use 'Democrat' in its place are republicans, and those further to the right. Republicans are also the only people to throw out this version of history, which leaves out critical parts

Second, as has been pointed out above, those guys either (a) died (b) turned Republican or (in one famous case) (c) recanted and repented (Byrd).

[John Emerson]

It took quite a fight to get a Lincolm statue erected in Richmond, VA. It's probably still the only Lincoln statue in the Republican South.

Mr. Rustbelt outdid himself today.

[sm]

kth,

Good post.

[Jon Gallagher]

Contrast this with NR's current thinking:
Jonah:
So which leftwing martyr/icon is left? ...
Martin Luther King Jr. -- small flaws aside -- is still looking good. But Bobby Kennedy is only a useful leftwing hero if you don't look too closely. Ditto JFK. Jesse Jackson's going to look awful to historians.

I'm so touched that they care.

[Michael Carroll]

- Actually the odd liberal republican (e.g wendel wilke) was ahead of most everybody except Eleanor Roosevelt on Race. So Rustbelt makes a fair point.

- Bruce, you should start a blog.

- I'm sure the left wing will be glad to stop spanking Brad now too.

- I thought at least fascist could make the trains run on time.

- Given the yawning income disparity in this country Syndicalism (Mondragon not Barcelona) doesn't seem so crazy about now...

[Randall]

"It was...Democrat[ic] President (JFK) who was timid on civil rights."

This is of course false and meant only as a typical slander.

[sglover]

So which leftwing martyr/icon is left? ...

Don't the goddam right-wingers read the history of their own country? How's about Tom Paine? The Underground Railroad? Ambrose Bierce? Walter Reuther? Choose your own -- there's a long, long list.....

["Q" the Enchanter]

Why are you doing this to yourself?

[masaccio]

The night Hubert Humphreyy died, one channel played a tape of his speech to the 1948 Democratic Convention. I got tears in my eyes and choked up to see and hear that speech. It made up for a lot of George Wallaces and Orvil Faubuses.

[Bruce Moomaw]

Sglover: No one in his right mind defends "The Nation's" periodic spasms of genuine Commie-Pinkoism (although, as Dwight Macdonald pointed out, they were actually a lot better about this before the 1950s, when Oswald Garrison Villard was running the magazine instead of Freda Kirchway). And as for their long-time sponsoring of Alexander Cockburn: don't get me started.

Moreover, the New Republic -- more surprisingly -- had strong pro-Soviet sympathies throughout most of the 1950s, although I haven't looked into the details. (They reprinted some of their more embarrassing comments from this period in their 75th anniversary issue -- and they made sure everyone understood that they WERE embarrassed by them. I'm not sure National Review is doing that with its exhumations of its past comments.)

As I said on another thread, that's the one feeble excuse NR had in the 1950s -- their ideological opposite numbers in the opinion-mag business really were making comparably stupid and destructive statments. Not that much of an excuse.

[Julian Elson]

It'd be easier to get over the National Review's racial... issues, if John Derbyshire didn't regard Steve Sailer as an authority on human genetics and biology. Just sayin'.