Much of what you hear from conservatives today about current black leaders are the same accusations and slander they hurled at the civil rights leaders who led the march in the 60's. The racist beliefs of the conservative movement haven't changed. Nor has their reluctance to admit they have been wrong on the issue of race. What has changed is their rhetoric towards a movement they vehemently opposed but now try to "morph" into their ideals. Read the entire article here: http://www.mediaite.com/online/i-have-a-revisionist-dream-national-review-tries-to-make-dr-kings-speech-an-ode-to-conservativism/ I Have a Revisionist Dream: National Review Tries to Make Dr. King’s Speech an Ode to Conservatism by Evan McMurry | 1:45 pm, August 28th, 2013 The upstanding folks at the National Review are shoveling overtime on this August 28 to get themselves out of the hole their founder William F. Buckley first dug more than fifty years ago. “Too many conservatives and libertarians, including the editors of this magazine, missed all of this at the time,” the editors wrote of the March on Washington, in an editorial I doubt a single one of them looked forward to. “They worried about the effects of the civil-rights movement on federalism and limited government. Those principles weren’t wrong, exactly; they were tragically misapplied, given the moral and historical context.” Tragically misapplied limited government principles is quite the deflation of the systemic and institutionalized racism that reigned from the end of the Civil War until it was partially mitigated by hard-earned legislation in the 1960s—as if conservatives were all set to join the March on Washington but tripped over a hardcover of Hayek and missed their church bus. The National Review knows full well it was on the wrong side of history fifty years ago. But by retroactively reading their conservative ideals into the civil rights movement—by reframing the “moral context”— the editors hope to smuggle the magazine’s current, less rabid but no less sincere brand racism back into the debate. Editor at large Jonah Goldberg does most of the heavy lifting in a separate post. “In the American context, these are universal appeals,” Goldberg wrote of King’s “idea of colorblindness.” “King pleaded for the fulfillment of America’s classically liberal revolution. At the core of that revolution was the concept of negative liberty—being free from government-imposed oppression. That is why the Bill of Rights is framed in the negative or designed to restrict the power of government. ‘The Congress shall make no law’ that abridges freedom of speech, assembly, etc. This arrangement has never fully satisfied the Left.” It’s quite rich to call “colorblindness” a universal appeal at a time when much of the country was vehemently opposing the integration of African Americans into society. It didn’t have a universal appeal for George Wallace, or for the men who killed Emmett Till, or who shot Medgar Evers. It didn’t have universal appeal for baseball until 1947. It didn’t have universal appeal for the armed forces until 1948. It didn’t have universal appeal for schools until 1954. Nor did the “universal appeal” of colorblindness speak to the Founding Fathers, who saw to it that these wonderful negative rights did in fact subtract two-fifths of African Americans’ personhood. It didn’t speak to slave owners. It didn’t speak to the Supreme Court. How many asterisks does a universal appeal need before it no longer is universal? This sleight of logic both centers an illusion of conservatism within the civil rights movement and leaves contemporary conservatives free to pursue any modern form of racist garbage they’d like. See, for instance, Bill O’Reilly on what MLK would make of contemporary black society, or George Will on any Sunday you’d like, each of whom in their own way attempt to read African Americans’ economic conditions not as an obstacle to self-realization but a punishment for lack of personal responsibility, something with which the socialist-heavy civil rights movement probably would not have agreed. By erasing integral portions of his message, conservatives have withered Dr. King into a right wing scold. Which brings us to the National Review’s pressing need to rewrite history. If the magazine seems to be pretzling itself over its own civil rights legacy, it’s because they’re trying to somehow square the fact that they were wrong about racial progress fifty years ago with the desire not to be wrong about it now. Ignore the fact that the publication has had to fire two writers in the past two years for racist rhetoric. (Or don’t!) Consider instead the publication’s stance on Voter ID laws, which are ruses to restrict minority voting—ruses which threaten to undue the very legislation the civil rights movement worked so hard to achieve.