Defend Violent Protests If You Must, Just Leave Dr. King Out Of It

Fascism craves violence at home.

Donald Trump is technically the president of the United States, but in practice, he’s the leader of a hostile fascist power that’s imposing its will on what remains of a free nation. He’s sending his droogs into Democratic-run states like an invading army. Trump’s Fort Sumter is all of Los Angeles, where his masked ICE agents — a literal secret police — are rounding up anyone they suspect is here illegally. He’s also activated the National Guard against the wishes of the sitting Democratic governor. Strongly worded letters obviously aren’t sufficient to this threat.

Cynics might dismiss peaceful protest as a valid response — “Why didn’t you just vote for Kamala Harris?” they say, as if most protesters didn’t — but protest isn’t simply performative. It sends a vital message to the truly free world that not all Americans have abandoned liberal democracy.

Others have criticized Democratic politicians who’ve stressed that protests must remain peaceful. California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted on social media, “California — Don’t give Donald Trump what he wants. Speak up. Stay peaceful. Stay calm. Do not use violence and respect the law enforcement officers that are trying their best to keep the peace.” California Sen. Adam Schiff posted, “Los Angeles — violence is never the answer. Assaulting law enforcement is never ok. Indeed, doing so plays directly into the hands of those who seek to antagonize and weaponize the situation for their own gain. Don’t let them succeed.”

These are reasonable statements when there is even limited violence on the ground, as Trump and right-wing media are eager to set their own Reichstag fire. I get that it’s confusing, considering how Republicans behave, but elected Democrats are lawmakers and thus have a constitutional obligation to uphold the law. Yes, Republicans defended January 6 rioters, and Trump pardoned even the ones who attacked law enforcement. Democrats have called out this hypocrisy, which is harder to do if they are seen as giving left-wing rioters a pass.

Sen. Bernie Sanders posted on Monday, “Dr. King defeated racist government officials & ended segregation through disciplined non-violent resistance. Defeating Trumpism, oligarchy & authoritarianism requires that same level of discipline. Violent protests are counterproductive and play right into Trump’s playbook.”

We should stress that the vast majority of protests are peaceful, and Trump’s goons are the ones escalating tensions. However, there are many who argue that a violent response to Trump’s immoral and mostly unlawful actions is perfectly legitimate. I won’t debate the merits of violent protests with its supporters — primarily because they’re so easily prone to violence. However, it’s strange that some of the same people who promote ceasefires and diplomacy abroad don’t think peaceful resolutions are possible within our own, admittedly screwy, government.

Martin Luther King Jr. Didn’t Just Have A Dream. He Radically Promoted Peace.

---

---

Journalist Carolyn Hinds posted on social media, “Freedom and progress have NEVER EVER in the history of humanity ever been achieved through nonviolent action. NOT ONCE was freedom ever simply given to the oppressed, subjugated, and victimized because they were civil and nice. Protesting by very its definition is disruptive.”

Historian Ashley Stevens added, “There’s been no time in American history where citizens have gotten anything without resistance, which included violence.” When the historian was reminded that her history seemingly ignored Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who promoted peaceful direct action against the most violent segregationists, Stevens replied, “I always find it funny, not ‘ha ha’ funny, but ‘shit, we in danger’ when people bring up MLK like the big joker in regards to protests. Making sure to mention the non-violent part, but they never seem to say an important fact, non-violence didn’t save MLK. He was STILL murdered!”

Look, people are free to disagree with Dr. King’s non-violent philosophy, as many did during the Civil Rights Movement, but that disagreement doesn’t alter his actual beliefs and their overall effectiveness.

First, let’s clarify who actually killed Dr. King. He was murdered by a racist scumbag with easy access to a deadly weapon. (Unfortunately, that combination persists to this day.) However, despite the many conspiracy theories to the contrary, the state did not summarily execute Dr. King, which likely would’ve happened if he’d openly led a violent movement against the U.S. government.

Dr. King died too soon, but “they killed MLK anyway” suggests that if he’d embraced violence, he somehow wouldn’t have been assassinated. I think Dr. King knew the price he’d pay for his mission, but his non-violent philosophy ensured that the mission actually succeeded. Dr. King would never have seen the inside of the White House, even on a tour, if he’d publicly promoted violent action.

Non-violent resistance, such as lunch counter sit-ins, was disruptive, but never overtly violent. Freedom Riders actively trained with role-playing exercises intended to prepare them for inevitable abuse and physical attacks. They were highly disciplined and remained calm in the worst provocation and refused to retaliate when attacked, especially by the police and segregationists without a badge.

This was not simply a moral position but a tactical one. A minority of the population in armed revolt against a sizable majority will lose, badly. The American Revolution was different because an ocean separated the British from the colonists. The Confederacy eventually lost the Civil War. General Sherman set Atlanta on fire, and Trump would have no problem doing the same to Portland, Oregon.

If Dr. King were alive today, he’d probably concede that our current situation is more dire because the president is Donald Trump, who is more like George Wallace than Lyndon B. Johnson or even Barry Goldwater. Stephen Miller is like having Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond in the White House. However, it’s unlikely this grim reality would turn Dr. King into Rambo.

“The strong man is the man who will not hit back, who can stand up for his rights and yet not hit back,” King told thousands of supporters at Holt Street Baptist Church on Nov. 14, 1956. “If we as Negroes succumb to the temptation of using violence in our struggle, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and bitter night … a long and desolate night of bitterness. And our only legacy to the future will be an endless reign of meaningless chaos.”

Dr. King rejected personal bitterness and believed that all Americans were capable of positive change. He never dismissed the U.S. as an irredeemably racist patriarchal nation.

“Certainly, this is the glory of America, with all of its faults,” Dr. King said during the Montgomery Bus Boycott. “This is the glory of our democracy. If we were incarcerated behind the iron curtains of a Communistic nation we couldn’t do this. If we were dropped in the dungeon of a totalitarian regime we couldn’t do this. But the great glory of American democracy is the right to protest for right. My friends, don’t let anybody make us feel that we are to be compared in our actions with the Ku Klux Klan or with the White Citizens Council. There will be no crosses burned at any bus stops in Montgomery. There will be no white persons pulled out of their homes and taken out on some distant road and lynched for not cooperating. There will be nobody amid, among us who will stand up and defy the Constitution of this nation.”

If right-wingers only seem to remember that one line from Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream” speech, the left too often takes his criticism of “white moderates” out of context. He was critical of those who demanded that Black people living under Jim Crow do nothing at all, but in his same Letter from Birmingham Jail, he spoke about “self-purification” as one of four necessary steps in any non-violent campaign: “We started having workshops on nonviolence and repeatedly asked ourselves the questions, ‘Are you able to accept blows without retaliating?’ and ‘Are you able to endure the ordeals of jail?’

Also taken out of context is Dr. King’s statement that a “riot is the language of the unheard.” (Watch below.)

While Dr. King acknowledged why riots take place (he was never one to dehumanize people with whom he disagreed), he also said, “I have felt, and I still feel, that non- violence is the most potent weapon available to the Negro in his struggle for freedom. I will still raise my voice against riots and violence because I don’t think that it solves the problem. I think that it only tends to intensify the fears of the white community while relieving the guilt. I think it is impractical because an old eye-for-an-eye philosophy can end up leaving everybody blind, and I think, in the final analysis, it is impractical because violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred. It’s all a descending spiral ending ultimately in destruction for all too many. [So] I am still convinced the greatest thrust can be made though militant non-violence. But in condemning violence it would be an act of irresponsibility not to be as strong in condemning the conditions in our society that cause people to feel so angry that they have no alternative but to engage in riots.”

Yes, Dr. King died with extremely low approval but this was arguably because he was so consistent in his non-violent beliefs that he publicly opposed America’s involvement in the Vietnam War. Supporting economic justice for working people of all races also didn’t help. (Watch below.)

Ashley Stevens posted some other remarks I found interesting: “As a student of History and observer of people, a lot of you seem to only view violence in the physical form. That way of thinking is dangerous. It allows you to forget poverty is violence. That denying you healthcare is violence. That polluting your water and air is violence.”

Equating financial hardship to outright physical violence is ironic because segregationists did the very same thing when Dr. King’s direct action of boycotts threatened their bottom line. Leading a financially devastating bus boycott would then justify bombing Dr. King’s house. He was taking food off their plates.

I’m not sure the liberals who endorse violent protest are fully prepared to go up against the most bloodthirsty MAGA supporters, who Richard Pryor would describe as “white folks who scare white folks.” MAGA has all the guns, and we have activists armed with dissertations and student loan debt. That’ll be a short-ass violent revolution. They won’t even give us enough time to know what we did.

History has shown that violent conflict is sometimes inevitable, but it’s not anything to relish or valorize. However, we still have the remnants of a nation of laws, and Trump’s most decisive defeats so far have come from the courts, not the barrel of a gun. Governor Newsom has sued the Trump administration for deploying the National Guard without his consent.

I agree that Democrats should focus primarily on fighting fascism but we should use the tools of civil society while we have them. Once we’re in the streets with bricks and bats, the fascists will have already won.