Time for champions of truth to step forward

Yesterday was a national holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It is the only federal holiday honoring an individual other than past presidents of the U.S. The holiday was, and still is, controversial.

It was born at a time of continuing, but lessening racial strife in the country. First proposed immediately after the assassination of Dr. King in 1968, it was not approved by congress until 1983 and signed by President Ronald Reagan. Even then there was simmering opposition, and it continues to a degree today.

The state of Arizona is a prime example of resistance to accepting the holiday. The year after it was adopted, Arizona chose to rescind it within the state and paid a dear price for the next five years. A Super Bowl was canceled for Tempe and moved to California. The state fell under a national tourism boycott and suffered loses in tourism revenues until a state wide referendum restored the observance in 1992.

Not until 2000 did the state of South Carolina accept the observance as a paid holiday for state workers. Change comes slowly and often grudgingly, but it does come, especially when it is the right thing to do.

Today’s contentious political climate is an emerging breeding ground for reviving old animosities. Not since the hugely divisive days of the Civil Rights struggle has the U.S. been torn by such seemingly intractable differences among citizens. The present political issues are increasingly clouded by rancorous rhetoric. It is becoming more important to score points against a perceived opponent than to discuss differences. If that was ever in doubt, the recent tragic event in Tucson has brought this into full focus.

The mere mention by a county sheriff that he believes vitriolic rhetoric overheard in the media can be a contributing factor influencing deranged actions to some degree, has set off a firestorm of attacks against him and others agreeing with the premise. One has to wonder why any person would take offense to such a worthwhile thought. It cannot be said that it was aimed at any specific group or person, but some groups or persons came rapidly to identify themselves as being offended. They, apparently, let it be undeniably known that they defend vitriolic speech. An attack on rude behavior is an attack on them, they say. They, then, clearly and unapologetically accept bad mannered action. That anyone or any group would come so strongly and rapidly to the defense of ruthless slander or worse, plainly identifies them as advocates by their own admission.

The issue is not about identifying offending groups. Most are already well known. It is about refusing to sanction ruthless and vicious behavior and slanderous speech. Oddly, this behavior is seen as a precious asset and is strongly defended by some. As soon as Sheriff Dupnik made his remarks and many others affirmed them, the true believers in abominable tactics came roaring forth to take offense. Notice, not all opposition groups came forward. Many affirmed the notion that scurrilous actions should be unacceptable in civil debate. A national poll showed conclusively that an overwhelming number of Americans from all political persuasions agreed that a more civil and temperate tone is needed in politics. By their actions, though, a few holdouts made known their resolve to defend offensive behavior.

Defending, even championing, rude actions separates legitimate opposition from scallywags who attempt to pervert the entire political process. The few individuals who continue to promote and defend an unsocial agenda have made it abundantly clear that they see this as a right and intend to promote and defend it vigorously.

A window is finally open, however, for people of principle to come forward and deplore this destructive agenda. It is now obvious that attempting to take the high road has only given license to some who are devoted to villainy. Sadly, it has taken a tragic event to illustrate the true differences in philosophy among political dissidents in today’s America.

It is time for champions of fairness, truth and civil behavior to step forward and reclaim honorable means of settling differences. Dr. King once put it very well:

"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy"
(Martin Luther King, Jr.).