The dream that Martin Luther King, Jr. envisioned for America 50 years ago this week has mostly been achieved. But regrettably, those who attempted to honor him on the anniversary of his iconic “I Have A Dream” speech, rather than honoring him, tarnished his memory with a new kind of segregation and discrimination, based on ideology.
Advertisement-content continues below
Dr. King declared, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” With a black president, and several black congressmen and civic leaders in attendance, clearly the racial glass ceiling is shattered. And while there may be still a few pockets of actual racism around the country, electoral evidence on its own clearly signals the demise of racial discrimination in any systemic form.
But what was in evidence this week in Washington was a new version of discrimination, based on ideology. Where were the only black U.S. Senator, and the only black Supreme Court Justice? They were unceremoniously not invited. It clearly is not based on race, but based on ideology. Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina is a Republican and is the only black senator, and he is one of only eight in history. Clarence Thomas is a conservative jurist, was appointed by a Republican president, and is only the second in history to hold that position. The only conceivable explanation for their exclusion is based on ideological alignment.
So lets see if we understand this correctly. It’s not enough to be a minority and stand as evidence, based on station in life, that skin color no longer has relevance in today’s society. Rather, what’s most important is that one subscribes to liberalism, pay homage to their Party, and then skin color no longer matters. In other words, what the organizers of this week’s event honoring Rev. King did was engage in exactly the kind of conduct King himself denounced. They discriminated.
In fact, of the three dozen speakers at the event, not one was a Republican, a conservative, or anything but a died-in-the-wool Democrat. Clearly, we witnessed a gross and blatant example of discrimination. Why would they intentionally discriminate against the party of Lincoln, the party and ideology that pushed through the 13th and 14th Amendments ending slavery, and the party that pushed through the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1871, 1875, 1957, 1960, and 1964? None of those would’ve been possible without Republican support, and in most cases, ardently advocating for them.
Advertisement-content continues below
It would appear that issues regarding race in the 21st century are not about race at all, but about using race as a political tool for liberalism and advancing the cause of their party. How else could one possibly justify that the party of Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, and Jim Crow Laws would be the arbiters of all arguments alleging racism? The hypocrisy and duplicity are unsurpassed! Especially when we realize that the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was himself a Republican.
Confirming this observation, King’s speech 50 years ago cited the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Amendments to the Constitution referring to our individual liberties as citizens. Yet the administration of the first black president, proving in part by his position that King’s dream has been realized, officially classifies the types of persons who quote those documents as terrorists, potential terrorists, or right-wing extremists. Based on that alone, Obama would’ve had to recognize in King a threat to national security. How’s that for an ideological conundrum?
It becomes painfully more clear all the time that the left’s concept of diversity, in a racial context, really has nothing to do with ethnicity, but everything to do with an ideological homogeneity, exclusivity, and purity. The line of demarcation is purely ideological. If you’re a conservative or a Republican, expect no tolerance, no inclusion, no attempts at understanding, and no seat at the table of acceptable political speech. Such should be rather segregated from the mainstream of societal discourse, branded as possible terrorists, and classified as extremists.
Some of the idiocy that passed for lofty elocution at the rally this week confirms this observation further. Martin Luther King III claimed that some still use race as a “license to profile, to arrest and even to murder,” obviously referencing the Trayvon Martin case. Julian Bond, former chairman of the NAACP, claimed the Supreme Court had “eviscerated” the voting Rights Act by making it possible for states to pass voter ID laws. Melanie Campbell, president of the National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, apparently referencing the same Supreme Court decision, claimed that even though Klansmen in white sheets are no longer a menace, judges in black robes pose as great a threat.
And then President Obama, in his inexorable role as salesman for his unpopular Obamacare, made a failed attempt at convincing us that MLK would’ve approved of it. Apparently, the President has not read anything that MLK wrote or spoke of, since everything he said was based on the principle of freedom, which is sacrificed at the altar of the Affordable Care Act.
The Party that sponsored this week’s rally is ideologically and politically the least qualified to heap accolades on Rev. King. They have, after all, replaced their Jim Crow laws, forced segregation, and slavery with government handouts and party loyalty that have made minorities slaves to new masters: the government, and the Party that controls it.
AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, Idaho and is a graduate of Idaho State University with degrees in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.