In his address at the prayer pilgrimage for freedom, Martin Luther King Jr. delivers a sermon-like critique of the obstructionist elements of government that he sees as being responsible for delaying any significant change for civil rights. He does so by addressing the reasons why despite the supreme court ruling in favor of integrated schools, it had still not become a reality. He specifically lays the responsibility on both the pro-segregationist presence in Washington as well as the lack of conviction on the part of the supporters of integration. Choosing to focus on the later, he calls out both democratic and republican supporters for over indulging the elements in their party that attempt to delay any real change from occurring. In order to achieve some measure of progress, Dr.King calls for putting an end to this wishy-washy attitude, calling for strong leadership on the part of all three branches of government. Leadership backed by conviction and ideology. But he also does not neglect the role that strong African American leadership must also play. Contending for calm, confident community leadership based in an unyielding christian tradition.

In his address, Dr.King uses language that strongly emphasis the role that conviction must play in political advocacy, attempting to show rather than just tell. His choice to repeat phrases in his speech that capture his main theme, gives his arguments the air of urgency and importance that he advocates for. He repeatedly uses the phrase “give us the ballot” in a way that aggressively stresses the difference that they would be able to make themselves if given the opportunity given their strong beliefs on the issues. As if to say gives us the responsibility and we will show you how it ought to be done. He repeats words like “strong leadership”, “courageous leadership” in order to accentuate the need for a commitment that extends beyond politics. His use of strong language to condemn the harmful elements of both parties is also notable. He uses clearly, and confidently disparaging language like “dixiecrats”. Pointing to the “hypocrisy of right wing, reactionary northerners” as betraying democracy and justice. Once again attempting to show what he preaches in delivering strongly worded, confident critiques. But what I found most notable in his speech was his criticism of the quasi-liberalism of white northern liberals. On that Dr.King writes “What we are witnessing today in so many northern communities is a sort of quasi-liberalism which is based on the principle of looking sympathetically at all sides. It is a liberalism so bent on seeing all sides, that it fails to become committed to either side.” (par.14) This criticism of a liberalism far more concerned with balance than it is conviction is one that we hear often in today’s political climate. Most notably as it relates to the positions of democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Looking specifically at Hillary Clinton’s remarks on reforming criminal justice delivered in Charlotte, NC we can see many of the reasons why. These remarks were delivered by Clinton at a church in Charlotte following the police shooting of Keith Scott in North Carolina. In her speech she attempts to console the family of Mr.Scott as well as the audience in attendance while also cementing her commitment to social justice and equality. But throughout the speech Clinton is very careful not to choose any one side. When she speaks of the shooting she makes a point of suggesting we withhold judgment until the full investigation is done. When she speaks of the fear felt by innocent members of the black community, she mentions both police violence as well as civilians with guns as being the causes. Also making sure throughout her speech to mention that police officers are also effected by violence and deserve our prayers. Her language throughout the speech appears to be deliberately bipartisan, attempting not to alienate any one side. In doing so however, she fails to articulate any commitment to any one side. In much the same way as the liberals criticized by Dr.King, in these remarks she appears far more concerned with advocating for both sides that she fails to stand up for either.

So what do you guys think: Do you believe that the remarks used by Hillary Clinton in this address fit the mold of the inefficiently centrist liberals of Dr.King’s time? And if so, what implications does the fact that she seems to exhibit many of the features decried by Dr.King as detrimental to the cause of civil rights have on her potential efficacy when it comes to advancing progressive ideals? Are their other moments in other speeches delivered by Hillary Clinton that exhibit these same sorts of positions?

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Bibliography:

King, Martin Luther Jr. Give Us The Ballot. King Encyclopedia, Stanford University, 1957, Washington DC http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/encyclopedia/documentsentry/doc_give_us_the_ballot_address_at_the_prayer_pilgrimage_for_freedom/index.html

Hillary Clinton. Remarks in Charlotte, North Carolina on Reforming Criminal Justice and Providing Equal Opportunity. Hillaryclinton.com, Hillaryclinton.com, 3 Oct. 2016, https://www.hillaryclinton.com/speeches/remarks-in-charlotte-north-carolina/