King would be 82 today. What, if anything, might he have accomplished, if he had lived from 1968 to now, that would make things in America significantly different now?
E.g., I’ve sometimes heard progressives speak of Martin Luther King’s final project, the Poor People’s Campaign, which petered out after his death, as a lost opportunity for economic left-populism in America. (And some conspiracy-minded persons also see the Poor People’s Campaign as the reason why King, in the judgment of the PTB, finally had to be got rid of; but that’s another discussion and probably not one worth having.) But, can anything be worth doing and succeed, if it depends so much on one man? Maybe there just wasn’t enough grassroots support for the Poor People’s Campaign?
The SCLC survived and is involved with various projects along the lines of the Poor Peoples Campaign. Looking at the campaign goals it was nebulous beyond a general goal to improve upon poverty. So yes, the dream lives on in his absence.
I have a theory that King’s assasination (and also RFK’s) disillusioned a fair number of center-left voters who would have otherwise voted Democratic. Nixon only won the popular vote by 512,000 votes, and Humphrey lost Illinois, Ohio, New Jersey and Missouri each by less than 3%.
If King had lived and suppported the Democratic ticket, maybe Humphrey would have beaten Nixon.
I think that’s feasible. Hell, if we posit that King survived, maybe RFK would too, and they had more of an affinity for each other than King and Humphrey did (notwithstanding Bobby having been involved in JFK’s approval of the FBI wiretapping of King). Bobby could’ve beaten Tricky Dick, I think.
King’s influence was on the wane at the time of his death, I’ve read, due to his criticism of the Vietnam War and the apparent flop of the Poor People’s Campaign. If he’d lived, I think he might’ve seemed a wimp and a fuddy-duddy compared to the black radicals of the late Sixties and early Seventies. His plagiarism and his philandering might have come to light during his lifetime, further eroding his public standing. Certainly the Nixon White House (assuming Nixon still won in '68) would have had him on its Enemies List, and would’ve been eager to reveal that Dr. King had feet of clay.
He might have had a second moment in the sun in identifying the pathologies of the urban poor today and in criticizing hip-hop culture, sort of like Bill Cosby has done. The crack epidemic, AIDS and widespread unwed motherhood might also have rekindled the fires of his preaching.
By now, on his 82nd birthday, I suspect King would be regarded as an elderly lion of the Civil Rights Era whose best days were behind him - much as Coretta Scott King became, as his proxy in her later life. He’d still be honored for what he did in his youth, but not terribly relevant in the Obama years, I think.
I don’t think he would have gotten the nomination. Kennedy was doing well in the primaries, but Humphrey was the establishment choice. Only 13 states held primaries, and 12 of those had held their primaries when Kennedy was shot with only Illinois still to hold one. Of those 12, Kennedy had won 4, and McCarthy 6.
So I just don’t see Kennedy, if he had lived, having had the support to win the nomination.
Look what happened to Gandhi after his primary goal was achieved: lionized, but marginalized and practically forgotten. Shortly before his death, he said, “Everyone is eager to garland my picture, but nobody wants to listen to my advice.”
King, like Gandhi, was an inspirational leader, not an “Xs and Os” kind of guy, and his policy positions were a bit messy. People recognized that.