On Martin Luther King and Today's Poltics of "Change"

The third Monday of January signals the observance of Martin Luther King's birthday.

However, this year, it appears that with the candidacy of Barack Obama, the King holiday is taking on even more significance.

And though I am all for added recognition of Dr. King's work, I find that over time, this holiday is becoming less about the civil rights movement and an opportunity for politicans to use grandiose terms about how Dr. King's "dream" is still a work in progress and how they are the best gatekeepers to his movement.

But the one thing that gets me is that if King were alive today (a phrase that so many media pundits like to use on this day), Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton would not be his heir apparent.

For Obama to speak at Ebenezer Baptist Church yesterday made for a dramatic backdrop, however if would be foolish for the media or any voter to believe that he is the holder of the civil rights flame. The same goes towards Clinton when she made a direct appeal to Black America yesterday while speaking at a Harlem church.

The essence of the Civil Rights Movement in general, and specifically Dr. King's work, was the fact that it was part of a national movement. His work, and the dedication of millions of others, helped transform American life into what we are privileged to enjoy today. The result of the movement came through standing up for what they believed was right. This included taking risks that would destroy lives by being beaten, jailed, threatened with loss of employment, and even death.

No politician would ever take such a risk today. That is the reason why they are involved as politicians and not community activists.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards all take stances which best places them in favorable light. None of them would vote for an issue that would make them seem polarizing. (For instance, Obama is quick to note that he "stood out front" against the occupation of Iraq while he was a state senator; however, when reviewing his record in the United States Senate, he appears to have a voting record mirroring Clinton. That's not change, that's not wanting to be defeated in a national election.)

The record of Dr. King proves that he was a man who know the game of politics and used it to serve the best interests of the movement. King repeatedly took stances that would jeopardize his political standing. He did this with his marches in Alabama and he did it again when he first spoke out against the Vietnam War - to the dismay of President Lyndon Johnson. But King took the moral high road and believed in his faith. Today's politician will not do that for fear that it will alienate a segment of the voting public.

The Civil Rights Movement was a seminal moment in 20the Century America. It was able to use the grassroots method of community organizing and push a political agenda to the heights that may never be replicated again.

Today's America is filled with the self-interests and immediate satisfaction. It is often hard enough to motivate people to vote let alone speak their mind at their school, workplace, or home for fear of repercussions.

"Change" is a great political buzzword to motivate the masses. However, politicians, who by their very essence must compromise, are not the agents of change. In fact, they are nothing more than a conduit of their constituents. This is evident in how JFK and LBJ treated the Civil Rights Movement. They did not act on passing legislation until it became politically expedient for them to do so. (This is essentially what Clinton said when she made her controversial comments regarding LBJ, MLK, and the Voting Rights Act. She spoke in terms of politics, not in terms of public sentiment and dedication to the issue.)

So, while it is great to see the eloquent speeches given on this King holiday, keep in mind that that the real "dream" of Dr. King will only take effect once the public makes a demand for it.

That's how King would have viewed today's Democratic nomination race.