[Vision2020] In Memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

[Tom Hansen]

With a little searching of the Lewiston Morning Tribune (online edition) of
January 20, 1990 I found:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBERAL GUILT DESIGNATES HOLIDAY FOR A SCOUNDREL  
Doug Wilson
Lewiston Tribune  1990-01-20 
Page: A1  
 
    Last Thursday, the Tribune ran an embarrassed editorial on the national
holiday for Martin Luther King Jr. It seems that Idaho is one of the few
states which hasn't gone along with all the froth and bubble. The Tribune
called this sturdy good sense a defiance of ''the rest of the nation.'

The editorial also took state Sen. Mark Ricks to task for opposing
legislation which would bring Idaho into line. Ricks, R-Rexburg, was guilty
of saying, ''In my opinion, there have been people who have done so much
more than he has.'' That was enough for the Trib. Reading between the lines,
the paper went on to conclude that Ricks was ''whistling Dixie.'' I suppose
that what they meant by this was the implication that Ricks is a closet
Southerner, from which we are all supposed to infer that he is a racist.
Talk about bigotry. Everyone knows that white Southerners are bigots, right?

The editorial concluded by saying there is no middle ground between the good
will symbolized by Martin Luther King, and the mean-spiritedness and
intolerance symbolized by Mark Ricks.

Oh dear. What is a conservative supposed to do? If he doesn't think a
national holiday for King is a good idea, does he now have to support it
anyway? If he doesn't, then he will not be opposed by those who question his
judgment, but by those who would question his motives.

Contrary to popular superstition, it is possible to have opposed the
politics of Dr. King without depising him on account of his race. It should
also be noted that the politics of King still occupy a large segment of our
current events in the form of Jesse Jackson. If I don't vote for Jackson,
does that make me mean-spirited?

It is also possible to oppose this national holiday on the grounds that it
is being used to further a particular current political agenda. This is in
distinction from what a national holiday should be: the recognition of
historical greatness from a sufficient distance to be able to make that
judgment competently.

But white liberals, riddled with guilt, have trouble with this concept. If
someone does a black opponent the courtesy of treating him as a person ,
with whom he disagrees, just like he does with other people, the liberal
doesn't know where to look.

''Yes, yes, I know we disagree with each other all the time, but we're, you
know, different . If a black says something stupid, then pretend it didn't
happen. If you don't, then we write a editorial calling you mean-spirited.''

Blacks, like whites, are created in the image of God. They both are to be
therefore treated with dignity. Blacks, like whites, are capable of
monumental follies. When this happens, then that folly should be attributed
to the source, regardless of race, color, national orgin, sex or whatever
the current list is that you see in government buildings.

Martin Luther King was a man of great personal courage and ability, and if
we were not being pushed to support a national holiday in his honor, I would
be content to leave the matter there. But the man was also a scoundrel. Our
culture is in the process of deifying him, and someone should point out that
we are not required to rewrite history for the sake of a little liberal
''good will.''