More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Leo W. Gerard

GET UPDATES FROM Leo W. Gerard
 

Occupy: Resurrecting Rev. King's Final Dream

Posted: 01/16/2012 8:34 am

In public squares across the country, Occupy protesters honor Rev. Martin Luther King's memory on this holiday devoted to him. Their tribute is more meaningful and enduring than the granite monument that President Obama dedicated to Rev. King in Washington, D.C. last year.

That's because the Occupiers are pressing for a cause -- economic justice -- that Rev. King had embraced in the months before his assassination in 1968. And they're pursuing it with the technique he advocated - nonviolent protest.

Rev. King's final crusade, his Poor People's Campaign, and the Occupiers' championing the nation's 99 percent are remarkable in their similarities. It's tragic that in the 44 years since Rev. King launched his campaign for an economic Bill of Rights that the nation's poor and middle class have lurched backward instead of forward. It's hopeful, however, that a whole new generation of idealists has taken up the dream of economic justice.

In the year before Rev. King was gunned down, he persuaded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference to join him in a movement devoted to securing for all citizens the basic needs that would enable them to pursue the American Dream, to pursue happiness. He believed every able-bodied person should have access to a job with a living wage. And he believed every American should have decent housing and affordable health care. Without economic security, he said, no man is free.

Rev. King's dream has its roots in the progressive movement, containing key elements of Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt's proposed Economic Bill of Rights. Roosevelt, the beloved president who gave the country Social Security, pushed the Economic Bill of Rights in the waning days of the war.

Roosevelt said the original Bill of Rights had made the country great, but its political entitlements had proved inadequate to assure Americans equal opportunity to pursue happiness. The president who had pulled the country out of the Great Depression, the man born to great wealth, warned:

"People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made."

So he advocated a second Bill of Rights "under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all -- regardless of station, race or creed."

Among the rights Roosevelt proposed were a sustaining job, a decent home and adequate medical care.

Just 24 years later, Rev. King took up that cause for all people -- regardless of station, race or creed. He was murdered before completing plans for a march on Washington. But just weeks after his death, his widow and fellow Southern Christian Leadership Conference ministers, including Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Ralph Abernathy, led protesters into the capital city on May 12, 1968.

They went to federal offices seeking anti-poverty legislation. Then they established a shantytown called Resurrection City. Its huts and tents extended the length of the reflecting pool. As many as 1,800 people camped there through virtually continuous rain. The bad weather, the mud, the lingering trauma from Rev. King's assassination and the murder of Robert Kennedy on June 5, 1968, just a few weeks into the encampment, depressed the protesters.

In a recording from those difficult days, Rev. Jackson can be heard attempting to rally the demonstrators with the chant:

"I am. Somebody. I am. God's Child. I may not have a job, but I am somebody."

The crowd repeated Rev. Jackson's words, just like the "human microphone" used by the Occupiers today.

After six weeks, 1,000 park police surrounded Resurrection City, routed the remaining protesters with tear gas and razed the structures. This is prescient of the fate of too many Occupy encampments, from the original in New York's Zuccotti Park to its twin across the country in Oakland's Frank Ogawa Plaza.

After destruction of the shantytown in 1968, Rev. Jackson said:

"Resurrection City cannot be seen as a mud hole in Washington, but it is rather an idea unleashed in history. The idea has taken root and is growing across the country."

After the Occupy Wall Street evictions, protesters said the same:

"You can't evict an idea whose time has come."

Still, the Resurrection City protesters didn't get what they came for. They had sought major legislation to give opportunity to America's poor. At that time, 13 percent of the nation's population -- 25 million people -- lived in poverty.

Today, it's worse; nearly twice as many Americans -- 46.2 million -- live in poverty. The rate is worse as well -- 15.1 percent.

In addition, in the past decade the gap between rich and poor widened. In the past five years since the great recession began, banks evicted record numbers of families from their homes. And Republicans are threatening to repeal health care reform, the one achievement bringing the nation closer to an economic Bill of Rights.

No wonder protesters resurrected Resurrection City.

What Rev. King preached and what many Occupiers seem to believe is that paramount in a republic is job creation, not wealth creation. The duty of government is not to ensure that the rich get richer but to establish equal opportunity for individuals to achieve freedom, independence and happiness.

Without a job -- without adequate income -- freedom, independence and happiness are impossible.

"This is America's opportunity to help bridge the gulf between the haves and the have-nots. The question is whether America will do it. There is nothing new about poverty. What is new is that we now have the techniques and the resources to get rid of poverty. The real question is whether we have the will."

Those are Rev. King's words. The Occupiers have shown they have the will to achieve his dream.

 

Follow Leo W. Gerard on Twitter: www.twitter.com/uswblogger

 
 
  • Comments
  • 204
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:52 AM on 01/18/2012
Once again a simple mind is deceived into believing the big lie. No man is free if he has to kiss the backside of a politician to get a job. The government is the enemy the business man is the hero. The government is not involved because they love you they are involved to gain control over you. The business man is involved to earn a profit not to provide you a job. You have a right to equal access to the opportunity nothing more. Government is not the solution government is the problem. I refuse to allow government to chose what products I purchase, or sell. I will buy the product I choose, from the provider I choose, at the price they demand. I will sell the product I make to the customers that choose to buy from me at the price the market will allow. No government needed to provide anything more. All we need is a government that will stop robbing us of our right to be free.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:42 AM on 01/17/2012
"Occupy" actually has a different obstacle to overcome. Its obstacle is the thoroughly entrenched corruption in the United States Congress and elsewhere in the United States Government ... corruption that has become so blatant and brazen that its now-corrupt Supreme Court declares that it's legal.

But "the strategy that works" is exactly the same: get in their faces, and stay there.

There are, believe it or not, only about 1,000 people TOTAL who are causing tremendous grief for more than 312 Million others, just because they are sitting in top-dog positions in this Government =and= they have, to a (wo)man, been completely "bought."

For every high-criminal, then, there are over 312,000 individual Plaintiffs.

If enough of those 312,000 people steadfastly refuse to continue to be a Plaintiff, they won't be.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lightbulb10
01:29 PM on 01/17/2012
Except so many people get so very confused about themselves.
04:59 AM on 01/17/2012
If Occupy wants to achieve something and make a statement - then March on DC. It worked to end the Vietnam war. Sitting in your tents and trashing cities isn't doing a damn thing for the cause except making people angry at you.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
stack
USW Blogger
07:13 AM on 01/17/2012
One march on Washington did not end the war. That's ridiculous. It took actions in many cities over a long, long period.
Occupy, which does have an encampment in D.C., has changed the national conversation from deficits to jobs and income inequality.
Yes, there are some critics. But many of us admire the strength, both moral and physical, that the occupiers have exhibited.
marcdostl
Diogenesian & Classical Liberal
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:21 AM on 01/17/2012
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/06/01/a-nobel-economist-says-globalism-is-costly-for-americans/
A Nobel Economist Says Globalism Is Costly For Americans | Foreign Policy Journal

"Offshoring has destroyed the economy

by Paul Craig Roberts
June 1, 2011

These are discouraging times, but once in a blue moon a bit of hope appears. I am pleased to report on the bit of hope delivered in March of 2011 by Michael Spence, a Nobel prize-winning economist, assisted by Sandile Hlatshwayo, a researcher at New York University. The two economists have taken a careful empirical look at jobs offshoring and concluded that it has ruined the income and employment prospects for most Americans.

To add to the amazement, their research report, “The Evolving Structure of the American Economy and the Employment Challenge,” was published by the very establishment Council on Foreign Relations.

For a decade, I have warned that US corporations, pressed by Wall Street and large retailers such as Wal-Mart, to move offshore their production for US consumer markets, were simultaneously moving offshore US GDP, US tax base, US consumer income, and irreplaceable career opportunities for American citizens.

Among the serious consequences of offshoring are the dismantling of the ladders of upward mobility that made the US an “opportunity society,” an extraordinary worsening of the income distribution, and large trade and federal budget deficits that cannot be closed by normal means. These deficits now threaten the US dollar’s role as world reserve currency..."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:12 AM on 01/17/2012
An article on the 47% who don't pay federal income tax...

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/signs-of-dissent-what-about-the-47-who-pay-no-federal-income-taxes/246721/
Signs of Dissent: What About the 47% Who Pay No Federal Income Taxes? - Derek Thompson - Business - The Atlantic

"...Who pays no federal income taxes? I think I have the picture you're looking for. This piechart shows the households paying no FIT, with all inset numbers in thousands of dollars (i.e.: 20-30 means $20,000 to $30,000). The big takeaway is that more than half of the folks who pay no federal income tax make less than $20,000 a year. It is also true that 7,000 millionaires paid no federal income tax last year (more on that factoid here)...."

Many of the 47% give something more far more precious than money: their young to serve in the U.S. military.
12:36 AM on 01/17/2012
I love it. It's all the unions' fault and the teachers' fault that Wall Street got us into a Ponzi-scheme Great Depression. And rich people give us all their money, too!

You heard it first. Right here on this blog.

It's like heaven here in the good ol' US of A. How could you not believe the UnterBridgen Dwellungeners?
12:32 AM on 01/17/2012
How can you not be paid and defend the rich?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dee Amschler
on the edge
04:44 AM on 01/17/2012
Often it comes down to one of two methods. Either they have you convinced that "everyone" pays taxes that are "too high" along with corollary arguments like "letting temporary tax cuts expire would be a tax increase" while managing to ignore important bits of reality: that the higher income brackets have ways to deduct more of their income from being eligible for taxes than those in lower income brackets AND that tax rates (esp. for the higher brackets are at the lowest since - drum roll please - the EISENHOWER Administration in the 1950's!) all of which combines to "protecting the interests of the rich is also a vote to protect your best interest" (as long as you drank enough of the appropriate kool aid to swallow the argument). Or, they convince you that some divisive social issue (such as abortion and gay rights) is an "important national issue" and their party (the one protecting the interests of the rich) is the one taking their side (the voter's side) on said "important national issue", so the party picks up a lot of one- or two- issue voters.
12:31 AM on 01/17/2012
I like how they trot out this li about the rich paying all the taxes and the poor paying none. Yeah, they're really great those rich people. I think we should free them from taxes totally, don't you. So they can be free and express their freedom. Because they are so good and kind as to give us all their money the way they do.

Yes, it's true. The rich give all their money to you! It's a Christmas Miracle! Believe the Footwear Marionette crowd. They've got it right. The rich are the best people in the world. That's why they're rich!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:16 PM on 01/16/2012
U.S. workers' share of national income is at an all-time low:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/PRS85006173
FRED« Nonfarm Business Sector: Labor Share

While corporate profits are increasing:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP
FRED« Corporate Profits After Tax

Mainly because of reduced wages and benefits:

"JPMorgan’s July 11 “Eye on the Market” newsletter put it, “Reductions in wages and benefits explain the majority of the net improvement in [profit] margins… US labor compensation is now at a 50-year low relative to both company sales and US GDP.”

The two-party corporate-­controlled duopoly just put three more job-killin­g NAFTA-styl­e trade agreements in place with Columbia, Panama, and South Korea.

In 2004, the Bush administra­tion stated that the offshoring of blue-colla­r and white-coll­ar jobs would enrich the U.S. Link available upon request.

In 2011, the Obama administra­tion selected GE's CEO, a high priest of the offshoring cult, to be the jobs czar.

"At the banquet table of life there are no reserved seats. You get what you can take and you take what you can hold. And you can't hold anything without power. And power comes from organizati­on."

— A. Phillip Randolph
07:56 PM on 01/16/2012
Equal opportunity means helping a minority to achieve what the majority take for granted. Unfortunately, the extremely wealthy minority don't want anything to do with majority relative poverty. From their perspective the majority should be brainwashed into thinking support for them is a good thing. Remember trickle down economics where all money, in reality, trickled up to the extremely wealthy ? We can see this conundrum of minority labeling coming to the fore over and over again in tribes' battles. For example, the Assads in Syria represent a religious minority.
08:31 PM on 01/16/2012
Here are some facts that you seem to ignore. The top 1% income brackets in the US pay 37% of all Federal income taxes. They also provide 30% of all charitable giving. The top 10% income brackets pay 71% of all Federal income taxes. The bottom 47% of taxpayers pay ZERO federal income taxes. Who is not paying their fair share? (Source: IRS).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ConservativebyNature
I'll cling to my guns and religion, thank you
09:57 PM on 01/16/2012
They don't care about this. They are only interested in taking from the wealthy and redistributing it. That's what they mean by "economic justice." Justice has nothing to do with it. It sounds better than redistribution though.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rontheking
Everyone is behaving splendidly! splendidly!
10:30 PM on 01/16/2012
The bottom 80% only own 15% of the wealth!!!

That means the top 20% own 85% of EVERYTHING!!!

Wealth equality is the highest it's been since the last Great Republican Depression...and you are arguing that it should be even more....

Congratulations!
06:35 PM on 01/16/2012
This whole class warfare argument just doesn't hunt. The poll Gallup did last week indicates only 1-2% consider this an issue. I an sure the Obama administration WANTS it to be an issue so they can tell the 17% of Americans who are under/unemployed to blame the "rich" rather than the dreadful job the administration has done handling the economy.

Chart of Economic worries of Americans http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/na5yo2syo0mxjcyaedp-aa.gif
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
stack
USW Blogger
08:39 PM on 01/16/2012
Hilarious poll -- obviously a push poll done by GOP as it suggests an answer "Obama not doing a good job, no plan, lack of leadership."
But what's interesting for a GOP push poll, when the GOP says "entitlements" and regulations are the end of the world as we know it, is just how very, very few people consider either a problem!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ConservativebyNature
I'll cling to my guns and religion, thank you
09:59 PM on 01/16/2012
you know this is the case and i know this is the case. Why else would BHO be pushing the whole Rich vs Poor agenda? Divide and conquer. The only way he can win is to set us against each other.
photo
humanbeing-rick
Born in the USA 1947
06:14 PM on 01/16/2012
Yes, there are a lot of similarities, because we are continuing the same struggle for human dignity.
It is our duty to pick up the torch from our fallen heroes, and carry it forward to the mountain top.
We have a long, long way to go yet!
Rest in Peace, Martin.
05:58 PM on 01/16/2012
What is wrong with this country? The rich hate the poor and the poor hate the rich. The rich feel like the poor are moochers and the poor feel the rich are not paying them a fair wage. Both groups need each other. We need to find a way to work together and solve the problem instead of spouting hatred at each other. The rich feel the poor are lucky they gave them a job and they should shut up and be glad for that. The poor feel slighted because of their hard work being undervalued by the rich. Neither side wins...well...I guess the rich do since they dictate what the poor earn...or if they earn at all.
photo
humanbeing-rick
Born in the USA 1947
06:16 PM on 01/16/2012
"Without a job -- without adequate income -- freedom, independence and happiness are impossible."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ConservativebyNature
I'll cling to my guns and religion, thank you
10:29 PM on 01/16/2012
You are absolutely wrong. The poorest of the poor can be free and independent and you don't have to have money to be happy. That's the problem with people these days. They, like you, think they have to have a certain amount of money to be happy. Let me tell you, I've met plenty of rich people who aren't happy and I bet there's some rich peple who aren't truely free. What you meantion isn't dictated by the size of a bank account. It is the spirit that says "I'm happy" when times are bad. It is the spirit of the man that is free eventhough he is poor.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bret Alan Cebulla
Aime-Toi
06:57 PM on 01/16/2012
The solution? Unions. Give the poor a voice to barter for their wages. The more diverse the unions, the less consolidated in power they are (as seen in today's mega-unions) making them more effective.
01:53 AM on 01/17/2012
Unions don't barter for wages, they extort!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:19 AM on 01/17/2012
Don't you believe that corporations will shower workers with wages and benefits on their own, and not send blue-collar AND white-collar jobs offshore ?

Me neither.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
04:37 PM on 01/16/2012
Teachers unions enforce "first in last out" rules. Younger teachers are laid off in downturns, old teachers keep their jobs regardless of merit. Unions are the opposite of MLK's dream of equal opportunity.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
stack
USW Blogger
08:42 PM on 01/16/2012
In your world, without unions, all the older, more experienced teachers would be laid off first, because they tend to make more money. And the younger, inexperienced, untested teachers would keep their jobs because they are paid less. Hmm. In an imperfect world, I think I prefer the experienced teachers.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
09:12 PM on 01/16/2012
I worked 30 years in high tech R&D, for big guys like DEC, Wang, Apollo, HP, since '72. In "my world", people are rewarded based on merit, period. Steve Jobs hated unions, said our schools would never work as long as teachers unions controlled them.

Unions are the Borg, a collective. Subjugation of the individual to the group, and the insistence that all contributions are essentially equal, all people equally productive. The only people who like working in unions are under-achievers, they like getting same reward for little work.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bishop999999999
11:01 PM on 01/16/2012
In our world, the crappy teachers would be fired.

Shocking, right?