Dr. King and Vietnam

On March 25, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. requested "all those who love peace" to "combine the fervor of the civil rights movement with the peace movement." Reasoning that the war in Vietnam is morally and politically unjust, as well as inimical to Negroes' struggle for complete equality of opportunity, the Nobel Peace Prize-winner has promised to become an active participant in America's anti-war movement.

Wednesday, King qualified his earlier statement, explaining that he really hadn't proposed the merger of peace groups with civil rights organizations; but he added that he would be active in both from now on. Despite this partial disclaimer, King has raised the touchy question of the rationale, not to mention the efficacy, of linking the two drives. His reasoning is sound.

Civil rights advocates' strong hopes for an expansive and effective anti-poverty program have suffered since the war began to consume huge chunks of the Administration's budget and the President's lobbying time. In addition, much of the energy left liberals once devoted to the goal of true equality for the nation's most-maligned minority has been shifted to protests of the war. To link the issues is good sense.

Of course, the disappointments Negroes have suffered in the past two years are not wholly attributable to the war. An unfortunately large proportion of white America is willing to concede Negroes their bare constitutional rights, but balks at the thought of legislation or personal action which would give this minority de facto equality.

The stark fact remains that Negroes are dying for what the President calls "freedom" and "democracy" in Vietnam, while their relatives are treated as second-class citizens back in the states. Dr. King justly feels that this incongruity, as well as the damper the war has placed on anti-poverty measures, should be impressed on Negroes' minds.

It does not follow, however, that civil rights advocates should permit themselves to be taken in by critics who suggest that America withdraw precipatately from Vietnam. Nor should Dr. King have imputed to President Johnson policy some of the goals held by the Fascist powers in the Spanish Civil War--that is, a desire to "test our latest weapons." Although the Administration's policy may be objectionable for other reasons, such strident rhetoric is not only of doubtful value in rallying Negroes against the present policy, but may alienate moderate whites. Shock tactics will only isolate their proponents in such a faraway corner of the political arena that they may be ignored. In identifying with "doves," the civil rights movement--which will always need moderate white support--must be selective. This is not to say that Negroes should abandon forever the notion of backing a third party if Johnson continues on his present course in Vietnam. But no third party can expect much influence in upcoming elections unless its rher ric is vaguely comprehensible to the party in the middle.

Clearly, the civil rights movement will continue to stagnate if it remains a one-issue pressure group. It must now try to encourage Negroes to dissent--in a politically viable manner--from a policy which may commit too many of America's resources to Vietnam indefinitely.