“Black Republicans try to appropriate Martin Luther King”

Now it can be told: All the prominent black Republicans in America really can fit into one room.

In fairness, it was a pretty big room.

via The Washington Post.

Dana Milbank writes a snarky post about the audacity of black Republicans daring to have a celebration to commemorate King.

Their reasons for not joining the march on Washington,  one would assume, is that it is unclear how much the march on Washington is about honoring King – and how much is about pushing partisan policies. The problem, of course, is that, in claiming to represent “all” black voices, the march leaders are employing a “no true Scotsman” fallacy. How does one, faced with such a conundrum, honor King without being manipulated into supporting a cause you don’t believe in – and that you believe King would not have believed in, either?

But apparently blacks in the USA are still not “free” enough to have permission to vote whatever way they like – nor are they welcome to honor King any way they like, at least not without one of the nation’s most prominent newspapers doing their best to ridicule and stigmatize them for trying to keep the remembrance but ditch the groupthink.

But of course that groupthink is precisely why “all” blacks vote in lockstep, isn’t it? See the circularity of how this works? The argument is that you “owe” it to those who currently claim ownership of King’s name to vote the way they tell you to.

Dana Milbank is insinuating that black conservatives don’t have any claim on King, that he  – a white guy – has more right to decide who King’s rightful heirs are than these black men and women do.

It’s sad to see this guy deliberately minimizing Alveda King. Martin Luther King Jr wanted better for his children, so one might assume he might want better for his niece, as well.