Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
If Jim Crow hadn't managed to exclude a large segment of US citizens from voting, riding the front of the bus, drinking water or getting an education or having their lynchings investigated properly just like the white folks for damn near a hundred years I might agree with you, saying Martin Luther King is proof the US checks and balances work is like saying the fall of Berlin is proof that the Wiemer Republics constitution was effective.
|
(I'm not a Trump supporter.)
The proof is, MLK jr won in the end, even though his life was part of the price. One author wrote this recently about his famous speech (from
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...n-fred-bauer):
"On that summer afternoon 50 years ago, King sought to remind the United States of a higher, better purpose: to be a republic of law toward the protection of individual dignity and the promotion of freedom. He recalled the commitments of the Declaration and the Constitution, and he conjured a vision of the possibilities of the United States — the hope of individual emancipation from the dogma of collective racial imprisonment and the aspiration of individuals working toward the good in a freer, fairer world."
I'm not advocating that Trump should not be attacked. I am alarmed at much of what he has done so far, especially the travel ban, but because the constitution matters, I expect to see that his so-called executive orders are going to be scrutinized by the judiciary and by congress, and that the ideals of the constitution will be upheld.
Notwithstanding the implications of the travel ban, I remain of the idea that what he is doing needs to be looked at carefully and without pitchforks. His election demonstrates there is a deep unsettled undercurrent in the USA now rising to the popular side of politics, and the reasons this has happened need to be assessed and addressed. Simply bashing Trump does not address the core problem, whatever it is. That problem led to Trump's election.