Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Dr. King had it right

By

Like the passing of Nelson Mandela, our annual celebration of the life of Martin Luther King gives us a chance to pause and reflect on how few, far between, and essential are those inspired leaders who have the confidence to call upon our nobler selves.

This is a time of jeopardy in America for those values that Dr. King, without apology, named and named again: justice, equality, respect, and compassion.  Those words, themselves, are beleaguered today. They are all too often missing in our public discourse, silenced by what the Nobelist J. M. Coetzee called “a new, predatory economic rationalism” – which I take to be the theory that “winning” and “losing” are the dynamics of a successful community.

I disagree with that theory.  Dr. King had it right.  When it comes to the basic rights of human life – rights including, but beyond, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” – one person’s loss is a loss to all, and either everybody “wins,” or no one does.

We honor Dr. King best by defending our shared well being, not our victories over each other.  Our people’s rights include access to a decent job and living wages, to health care, to shelter, to learning, to fair laws fairly enforced, to a fair tax system, and to a government  that is both limited in its invasion of our private lives and effective in its service to our shared and public needs.  The enemies are not each other, but rather poverty, inequality, suffering, and the vestiges of racism.

This is a crucial time in America for firm and public rededication to the values that Dr. King gave such strong voice to.  Let Massachusetts lead in that chorus.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • There are many great ones, the ‘spiritual death’ quote is also quite powerful-and continues to be indicting of American foreign policy 30 years later.

      But I like this one:

      “What I’m saying to you this morning is that Communism forgets that life is individual. Capitalism forgets that life is social, and the Kingdom of Brotherhood is found neither in the thesis of Communism nor the antithesis of capitalism but in a higher synthesis. It is found in a higher synthesis that combines the truths of both. Now, when I say question the whole society, it means ultimately coming to see that the problem of racism, the problem of economic exploitation, and the problem of war are all tied together. These are the triple evils that are interrelated.”

  3. Thank you for posting an upbeat, timely, call-to-action essay here.

    I would be remiss and unfair if I did not echo my statements critiquing Ms. Kayyem (your opponent’s) lack of substantive data points in her recent essay on income inequality.

    Let Massachusetts lead in that chorus

    Would you kindly provide some detail for your vision for the Commonwealth? What are the lines to the chorus?

    • heartlanddem and jimc – Thank you for your interest. You can get a pretty good look at Don’s positions on our website: http://www.berwickforgovernor.com/issues.

      Also – we will be announcing our platforms on education, jobs/economy, and a few others in the coming weeks so stay tuned for that.

      Thanks!

      – Paul (Berwick for Governor)

      • I don’t see taxes, though. I’m not big on tax issues, but I am curious because Dr. Berwick brought it up.

      • We MUST raise taxes. Without creating new tax revenue, all this is just smoke, mirrors, and happy talk.

        Many of our most crushing challenges are the direct result of increasing wealth concentration and income inequality. Raising taxes on the very wealthy is the ONLY way to reverse these already devastating trends.

        I seek a gubernatorial candidate with the courage to speak to this issue and the political chops to make it happen.

        • …at least according to prevailing constitutional interpretation, how do you propose raising revenue from just the wealthy? Is there a way to make property tax hikes impact only those with lots of real and physical property? Is it practical to tax investments at the state level?

          Also, how would you frame this politically? In order to do anything the right people have to be elected and “we must raise taxes” doesn’t sound like a winning message.

          • Run investment first: better transit, better schools, better healthcare, more jobs. Then say we can still balance the budget and pay for it by selectively raising taxes in the wealthiest, closing corporate loopholes and ending corporate welfare .

          • I’ve written at length about this elsewhere here.

            The capital gains tax falls most heavily on the very wealthy. I suggest it be raised significantly — perhaps with an exemption that effectively excludes the first, say, $1M in gains.

            The estate/gift tax similarly falls almost exclusively on the very wealthy. I suggest that the rate for non-household wealth (excluding the value of the principal residence) over, say, $10M could be raised significantly without affecting lower- and middle-income taxpayers.

            Each of these affects only the wealthy, and each falls well within the current constitutional restraints on income tax rates.

Archives