Each
year, at the time of the celebration of the life of Dr.
King, little attention is focused on King�s April 1967
speech against US aggression in Vietnam.� We are exposed
to remembrances concerning the 1963 March on Washington,
and sometimes the events surrounding his murder in 1968,
but little about his strong stand against the Vietnam
War, and more generally, his insistence on the need for
a different US foreign policy.
Even where there is discussion of the 1967 speech, what
always struck me - but particularly strikes me in the
era of Obama - were the political risks that King took
in coming out against the war; as well as the ramifications
for doing so.
The obvious historical fact is that King came out against
a war that, while initiated by the Republican President
Eisenhower in the 1950s, was systematically escalated
by two Democratic Presidents - John Kennedy and Lyndon
Johnson.�� These were also the two Democratic Presidents
who oversaw important favorable legislation for African
Americans (and for many other sectors of the population).�
That they did so as a result of mass pressure was not
an insignificant point, but the fact is that they did
institute certain changes.
Historical scholarship has indicated that King was deeply
disturbed about the Vietnam War for quite some time but
refused to speak publicly against it.� He was warned that
to do so would be an act of betrayal of, in that case,
a Democratic President [Johnson] who had signed into law
both the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights
Act.� Given King�s role in the movement, taking the step
of challenging a sitting Democratic President on his views
on foreign policy was monumental.
From the moment that the speech was given, many backs were
turned on King.� LBJ was reported to have been stunned.�
Mainstream newspapers denounced King, in some cases suggesting
that he did not know what he was talking about and that
he should focus on domestic issues.� While many people
to the Left of King were pleased with his statement -
and with his continuous stand till his last day - there
were many liberals (including Black liberals) who were
either bewildered or felt that King had lost any sense
of direction.
King made it clear that he had to speak up.� He clearly
knew that in speaking up this would not help the reelection
possibilities of Johnson, but remaining silent would be
a betrayal of his own belief system.� He also realized
that as a leader of a social movement that his principal
responsibility was to stand firm against injustice, whether
that injustice was being perpetrated domestically or internationally,
and whether that injustice was being perpetrated by a
foe or someone who claimed to be a friend.
Politics is never about absolutes but principle should always
guide actions.� People, parties and organizations can
be friends today on certain issues; neutrals tomorrow;
and opponents the day after on yet other issues.� These
are facts that King realized.� Alliances could be flexible
but principle always needs to go to the core.� The critical
piece, however, is to not confuse principle with real
politics; they overlap but they are not identical.� Alliances,
in particular, are made on shared interests.� Those shared
interests may be short-term [tactical] or long-term [strategic].�
But one should never assume that those alliances can be
cemented by shared principles; that is a rare (though
important) occurrence.
In the setting of 1967 the fight for Black Freedom in the
USA was undermined to the extent to which there was silence
on US aggression internationally.� Malcolm X had realized
this prior to his own untimely demise.� King also realized
that the domestic struggle for Black Freedom had to proceed
much farther than the matter of formal legislation; it
had to address real political and economic power for the
masses of people who were dispossessed.� Thus, King�s
speech in 1967 was not only about foreign policy but was
actually about rearticulating Black politics:� it was,
as with Malcolm X, a matter of a fight for human rights
in the domestic and international arena.� This expansion
of Black politics was an anathema to mainstream Civil
Rights leaders, let alone to the system itself.
It would seem to me that there are some lessons here.
BlackCommentator.com
Editorial Board member, Bill Fletcher, Jr., is a Senior Scholar with
the Institute for
Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfricaForum and co-author of Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a New Path
toward Social Justice (University of California Press), which examines
the crisis of organized labor in the USA. Click here
to contact Mr. Fletcher.
