In America, the fact that Martin Luther King won the Nobel Peace Prize is not that big a deal. I dare say, relatively few know he won it. King was much bigger than the Nobel Peace Prize. Sometimes the prize makes the man. Sometimes the man enhances the prize. Throughout the world, however, the fact that King won the peace prize is, or was, a biggish deal. It increased his international reputation.
He won in 1964, at age 35. At that time, he was the youngest person ever to win the Nobel Peace Prize. The year before was the March on Washington, and the “I Have a Dream” speech. When the Nobel for King was announced, in October 1964, we were nearing the end of a presidential campaign: President Johnson vs. Senator Goldwater.
David Garrow points out in his renowned biography of King (Bearing the Cross) that Johnson did not congratulate King after the Nobel announcement. This omission stung Mrs. King, in particular. But her husband explained, matter-of-factly, that the president was reluctant to offend white southerners so close to the election.
As always, the prize ceremony took place in December. Arriving in Oslo, King met with the local press, saying that he and his team viewed their trip as an educational opportunity: “We feel we have much to learn from Scandinavia’s democratic socialist tradition . . .” During the prize ceremony, the Norwegians offered music from Gershwin’s Porgy and Bess (an opera about blacks in the Sea Islands of South Carolina by a Jewish composer from New York).
The Nobel Committee chairman, Gunnar Jahn, stressed the reason for King’s receipt of the prize: nonviolence. Jahn quoted the Sermon on the Mount: “. . . whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” King, in his acceptance speech, said that “civilization and violence are antithetical concepts.” And he noted that “Negroes of the United States, following the people of India, have demonstrated that nonviolence is not sterile passivity but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation.”
He also said, “I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind.” That word “audacious,” or its cousin “audacity,” would play a big role in the rhetoric of a later Nobel peace laureate, Barack Obama.
So, that was the acceptance speech. The next day, King delivered a different speech — the Nobel lecture — and it stands as one of his greatest orations (which, of course, is saying something). Part sermon, part political address, part philosophical meditation, it is wise and beautiful. Some passages achieve transcendence.
One passage, however, I regard as beneath him — and beneath the occasion of the speech. Johnson had beaten Goldwater the month before, in a landslide. And, in Oslo, King said,
Another indication that progress is being made was found in the recent presidential election in the United States. The American people revealed great maturity by overwhelmingly rejecting a presidential candidate who had become identified with extremism, racism, and retrogression. The voters of our nation rendered a telling blow to the radical right. They defeated those elements in our society which seek to pit white against Negro and lead the nation down a dangerous Fascist path.
An older MLK might well have been ashamed of that rhetoric, or at least regretted it. For one thing, Goldwater’s view of government and economics was the opposite of fascist: was the classical-liberal view.
After his stay in Oslo, King traveled to nearby Stockholm, where he went to the home of the Myrdals, Gunnar and Alva. In due course, he traveled back to the States, to New York: where he was greeted with a hero’s welcome. King was fired with the idea of social democracy, saying that, in Scandinavia, they had “no unemployment and no slums.” He wanted a “broad alliance,” encompassing black and white alike, in the pursuit of “economic justice.”
The election won, Johnson invited King to the White House, to which the laureate flew from New York on Gov. Nelson Rockefeller’s private jet. At last, he went home to Atlanta, where young people in his church — Ebenezer Baptist — serenaded him with Christmas carols.
Just a little footnote: As Garrow tells us, Mrs. King had wanted some of the Nobel prize money — $54,000 — to be spent on transport to Scandinavia for family and friends. She also thought that some of the money should be set aside for the King children’s college education. King thought otherwise, believing that the funds in their entirety should be poured into the cause, the civil-rights movement: which they were.
To read King’s acceptance speech, go here. And for his Nobel lecture: here. And Happy MLK Day.
Editor’s note: Jay Nordlinger has written a history of the Nobel Peace Prize, forthcoming from Encounter Books.
Very few (including Glenn Beck) realize or note that MLK was heading down the path of democratic socialism and economic justice (income redistribution) which is/was totally at odds with his wish to "judge by the quality of the person and not the color of his skin".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt explains why so many close to him, Jackson, & Sharpton, advocate the true latest direction of King's campaign and not the communal wish of most Americans that of the "I have a Dream" speech.
Racism is continued in the United States by those that cry racism and see it where it is not exhibited or seen, and then only in the minds of those wishing it was still so.
I attended a seminar presentation by Garrow at the University of North Carolina some years ago in which Mr. Garrow handed out copies of a speech made by King at a closed meeting of civil rights leaders shortly before his death.
In this talk, King acknowledged that the "civil rights" struggle -- strictly understood -- had been won. He then went on to describe a much broader agenda of thoroughgoing socialism that included jobs, housing, etc. and that was a class struggle with no racial component. He then went on to counsel that although these objectives for the America that he envisioned had nothing really to do with "civil rights," the language of the civil rights struggle had proved so potent that they must continue to use this language to push the country to the Left. "Socialism" would be the milder term to describe the vision that he sketched out.
Today I celebrate Dr. King not only for his contribution to real civil rights but for leaving us such a rich moment in the historical record where we can see the utterly dishonest, stealthy, propagandistic approach that the American Left has taken to sell its Kool-Aid.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI call today, "holiday."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe legacy of MLK, Jr. is one of the most sanitized and manipulated in American history. Blatend politicing and the changing stances on Vietname have disappeared totally. Now we get selected quaotations and, "If Doctor King had lived..." wishful thinking.
The modern generation does not give MLK Jr. the credit as a man of peace, though. The history books, such as they are, do not show how violent America was in the 1960's. There were riots with dozens killed in major American cities, and the violence was not confined there. Maybe the biggest tribute to King as a peacemaker is that there were not riots after his murder; I know I was afraid to go to school the next day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJay remarks: “An older MLK might well have been ashamed of that rhetoric [about Goldwater and the ‘radical right’], or at least regretted it.”
So one would hope. But when Ralph Abernathy endorsed Reagan’s candidacy for President in 1980 because of his economic policies as Governor of California, he was regarded as a traitor to the civil rights movement which he had inaugurated MLK's side. The civil rights establishment never forgave him; the antipathy to classic liberalism in favor of democratic socialism runs deep.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"An older MLK might well have been ashamed of that rhetoric, or at least regretted it."
I strongly doubt that. Let's not sugarcoat things. Experience shows us that the opposite would have been true.
"the funds in their entirety should be poured into the cause, the civil-rights movement: which they were"
Which means what, exactly? They went to pay salaries, which may well mean they went to the same place...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe comment about leading America down a Fascist path is interesting (especially the capitalization). One is left to wonder if this was Dr. King's own analysis, or if he was relying upon misinformation from others, such as Daniel Schorr, who promulgated the falsehood that Senator Goldwater vacationed in Germany to "link up" with neo-Nazis (quoted from page 233 of Liberal Fascism).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWorks against the desperate attempts on the right to co-opt King's legacy and pretend that Republicans were on the right side during the Civil Rights movement (they weren't; despite the bad behavior of Southern Democrats--Southern Republicans had an even poorer record than Democrats of supporting the Civil Right movement, and while Northern Democrats were almost universally supportive, northern Republicans were half-and-half on the issues).
I have even seen conservatives in forums declaring that King was a Republican. It's a lie, and conservatives are better served by admitting their past mistakes and moving past them than denying their past faults.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEd in Cary--you completely misunderstand King's poverty campaign. He from the beginning was fighting for justice for all. He saw that overturning legally mandated segregation and Jim Crow laws was not going to along be enough to being poor and black Americans into full American society.
Yes, he was on the road to 'economic justice.' Because he was a Christian who took Jesus' teachings seriously, and was trying to put the least first. He was trying to increase human dignity and staunch exploitation. He was feeding the hungry and speaking for those in prison. As all good Christian people should still be doing.
And he knew he was probably going to be killed for it, as people who preach as he did so often do. And he had the amazing courage to do it anyway.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI get choked up every time I watch and listen to Dr. King's promised land speech. It is worth spending a few minutes watching it again today.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI expected more of NRO today, and of you, Jay, in general. "Some passages achieve transcendence" - What is this pandering? I wasn't aware Peggy Noonan was your ghostwriter.
How come no one (including our school system) ever mentions MLKs philandering and dissertation-plagiarizing past? He was and remains to those who know his true story an unsavory figure. As KentBook astutely reminds us, MLK was absolutely going down the road of socialism and wealth redistribution, the natural path for those who see society as the root evil and first cause for all of life's ills.
Nevertheless, I did learn something today: The Nobel Peace Prize, while clearly meaningless now, was equally meaningless 47 years ago.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAfter American blacks won full formal equality in the civil rights era, it was inevitable (and, I think, right) that we would get a "black" holiday, and that a black American would be added to the top echelon of the American pantheon of secular saints. Some of us might have preferred Frederick Douglass or Booker T. Washington, but MLK is a pretty good choice overall. Yes, he was a man of the left, and if he had lived, we very well might have seen him move on the same trajectory as most of his contemporaries in the civil rights movement. But he isn't remembered for his thoughts on socialism vs. capitalism, and he doesn't really have any moral authority there. No one cares much what Gandhi thought about the welfare state, and I think the same is true of King.
Where he does have authority, and where no politician dares contradict him, is on matters of race. And there, his public speaking and writing was and is pitch-perfect, right, and completely compatible with the principles of the Founding and with American patriotism and tradition. I don't think we have to claim King as a Republican or conservative in order to celebrate him, or in order to use his words and his authority in fighting against racialist policies like affirmative action and ethnic studies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid someone say Nobel?
He said Amabo Obamadias, eh
I met a traveler, late of Nobelland,
A meme park, cloying as Candyland,
Who said, “A vast, nay global, king is crowned,
Hawaii spawned, of earth split diverse strand,
Pre timely marriage, by two not long for him around.
Oft’ stoned, he education gained, and phlegm,
Plus caustic wife, and rep for writing great renowned.
From him pure peace will sure from passion stem,
To one and all astound, stamped on world around.
On Nobel plinth we erect his image,
Sing fulsome praise unto his visage.
“Here’s to you Obama, this prize of prizes,
We scarce imagine, the deed that to it rises.
To you great king, Serene Obama,
Fond hope of hordes of baser mopes,
We grant, we sing, this hail, hosanna,
Based whole on horde of our fond hopes.”
To you deniers, we render this,
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse“Look on his glory, ye righties, and despair,
For from your every taunt re things amiss,
There’s nary doubt the writers most folks read,
Who grant no wrinkle, on those who leftward lead,
Will with airy twinkle, his flawless rep repair.”
I'm not sure what RiotLibrarian is talking about in his / her posts - MLK Jr's life history has been well documented, warts and all, down through the years. And no one has posted anything here that appears to me "desperate".
Although all Christians do believe in "social justice", let's not get confused about the difference between "social justice" and the policies of the Democratic Party (let alone the political doctrine of socialism).
Christ's message of "social justice" does not include forced income redistribution. Nor does it include preferential treatment based on the color of one's skin. That too many Democrats believe that it does is a shame.
As for this comment: "And he knew he was probably going to be killed for it, as people who preach as he did so often do. And he had the amazing courage to do it anyway." I would hope that you are not trying to conflate the death of MLK with the death of Jesus (a valid assumption based on your comments, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't trying to imply something so ignorant as that).
If that is what you were trying to do, I pity you. It is obvious that whatever books you have read and / or whatever churches you have attended have done you a great disservice when it comes to the true message of Jesus and why he died on the cross.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Yes, he was on the road to 'economic justice.' Because he was a Christian who took Jesus' teachings seriously, and was trying to put the least first. He was trying to increase human dignity and staunch exploitation. He was feeding the hungry and speaking for those in prison. As all good Christian people should still be doing."
Riot, Jesus never taught wealth distribution. He taught voluntary charity because it was the right thing to do.
Taxes do not equal charity.
And Conservatives give more to charity, even if you take away the usual tithing they do to their churches, than Liberals do.
And Americans give more overall than Europeans do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMartin Luther King, the communist?
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The American people revealed great maturity by overwhelmingly rejecting a presidential candidate who had become identified with extremism, racism, and retrogression."
Are we being asked to celebrate MLK who made these slanderous claims of Goldwater?
I wonder what he would have said about Reagan, Pope Paul, and Lady Thatcher who were also devout anti-communists.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy doesn't National Review print what it said about Martin Luther King back then?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@bmp...good posts re: MLK the communist
As a Southerner who grew up in the days of segregation, I am acutely sensitive to issues around race.
All thoughtful Southerners had to come to terms with a profound evil that was deeply embedded in our culture. Generally speaking, our region did come to terms with it, owned our shame, profoundly mended our ways, put it behind us, and are much the better for it.
On the other hand, it was a shame that was just too convenient for other areas of the country -- particularly the Northeast -- ever to let go. The country had a national scapegoat -- the Southeast -- and many non-Southerners had a permanent proof of their own righteousness and moral superiority. It is, of course, preposterous to imagine that Americans from one region of the country are stained with this great moral failing that can never be washed away while all the rest of the country is just one righteous, magnificent people.
But that is the way scapegoating is; once you have your scapegoat that view of things tends to work so well for the dominant people or culture or sections that they find it very hard ever to let it go. And very hard ever to look honestly into the dark places of their own hearts.
So for those who can remember participating in freedom rides or civil rights marches or even those who heard such stories from their relatives or who simply grew up knowing what an evil racism was, every thought about it identified the evil with a benighted "other" and assured them of their own moral sanctity. So everything identified with civil rights became enormously freighted in American history and American lore. It was not only extremely important history, but it made most people feel good while becoming for the South the permanent taint. It is a bit like Germans feel, I expect, especially Germans who had a notable Nazi somewhere in their family.
So for most of the country and even many Southerners who strongly identify with the civil rights movement, you just can not elevate that history and its heroes to too high a plane. The appetite for black history celebrations and MLK celebrations and the naming of streets and schools and public buildings is insatiable. MLK is made a saint; he not only did heroic things, he was the ideal man of perfect virtue. And he can not be spoken against.
But he was a morally flawed man in several regards and he was a communist. This is not trivial in my thinking. But these are just inconvenient facts that most want to airbrush out of our history. It makes most of us feel better and helps to clarify that evil was something in those wicked hearts of Southern sheriffs and all the other stock characters. It kinda besmirches our holiday to think about MLK in any way except as our saint. Happy MLK day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, ladykrystyna, conservatives don't give more to charity than liberals -- they just claim to. The data's very mixed. If one book could make a controversial point settled, we could all rely on John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience" to conclude that conservatives are just a bunch of authoritarian liars.
Even criminal statutes are not merely social ordering rules; they're suffused with morality, with right and wrong. Taxes are, to some extent, legislated morality too. Sorry you don't buy into that sector of the social compact. As for me, I'm not too happy about corporations being "people" but, hey, it's the supreme law of the land and I am stuck with it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse