Martin Luther King's Speech “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience:” The Radical Tradition

Martin Luther King, Jr., whose national holiday we celebrate today, gave his most influential speech on November 16, 1961. This speech is called “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience.” Like many speakers before and since, King showed that his seemingly radical ideas rested on strong traditions and historical precedents. He showed that people stand in an ancient tradition when they break unjust laws.


A Thoughtful Speech

The speech, which he presented to a group of student civil rights workers, did not rise to the heights of thrilling oratorical excellence for which King was remembered. So, why do I say that it was influential? That’s because “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience” was a carefully reasoned speech that shaped, justified, and explained the principle of nonviolent resistance to racial oppression. This speech, now largely forgotten, guided the Civil Rights movement. That movement would reach its climax three years later, during the Birmingham demonstrations, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the now-gutted Voting Rights Act of 1965 soon to follow.

In my previous post, I explained how this speech laid out the Civil Rights’ movement’s philosophical and moral foundation. The speech also justified the principle of nonviolent resistance to unjust laws. While King’s philosophical foundation relied heavily on Christian theology, his principle of nonviolent resistance owed more to Mohandas Gandhi and New England transcendentalism. Like many speakers before and since, King showed that his seemingly radical ideas rested on strong traditions and historical precedents.

Radicals, like King, seek social change. Conservatives look to tradition. Paradoxically, King combined the two opposing ideas. His agenda, which called for sweeping social and legal change, were considered radical in 1961. They would still be considered radical in 2022.

Yet, King’s astute persuasive tactic helped make his methods seem – well, not radical at all. By tying nonviolent resistance to history and tradition, King implied that his movement’s actions were traditional. More than that, however, he turned his critics’ arguments against them. It was they and not King, who rejected tradition – the tradition of civil disobedience. This was King’s subtext.


The History of Civil Disobedience

To begin with, King started with Greek philosophy. “There is nothing new about this,” King insisted. Indeed, he said that “We go back and read the Apology and the Crito, and you see Socrates practicing civil disobedience.” King also appealed to religious tradition, pointing out that early Christians also refused to obey unjust laws:

“The early Christians practiced civil disobedience in a superb manner, to a point where they were willing to be thrown to the lions. They were willing to face all kinds of suffering in order to stand up for what they knew was right even though they knew it was against the laws of the Roman Empire.”

How many conservative Christians have thought about that? About a time when the very act of worshipping as a Christian was civil disobedience? Not stopping there, King reminded the students that the United States of America has a long history of civil disobedience. He mentioned the Boston Tea Party and the work of pre-Civil War abolitionists:

“And even let us come up to America. Our nation in a sense came into being through a massive act of civil disobedience, for the Boston Tea Party was nothing but a massive act of civil disobedience. Those who stood up against the slave laws, the abolitionists, by and large practiced civil disobedience.”

The point here? Few of King’s opponents in 1961 would try to say that slavery was just. The abolitionists, who were the radicals of the 1850s, worked against the monstrous laws that perpetuated slavery. History now admires them. They became heroes – to later generations – by helping slaves to escape. However, they were heroes only because they broke the law. That obvious fact gave King a powerful historical and moral precedent.

There is, however, the other side. Are laws not supposed to be the guardians of public order and morality? Are we doing the right thing when we follow the law? Sometimes, King said, we are not.

 

What Is Legal Isn’t Always Right

In other words, that something is legal does not, in King’s philosophy, mean that it is right. Indeed, the law might require you to do something wrong. That was a radical concept – it is hard to imagine a more radical idea – and yet King’s logic seems inescapable. Throughout large parts of the United States in 1961, racial discrimination and oppression were actually required by law. Did that make it right? Was it right for people to obey such laws?

King offered a powerful rebuttal, founded on history and yet tied to the present day. King insisted that actions are not always righteous just because they are legal. He asked people to rise above popular morality and legal principles. He said that we should instead live by conscience. That is a difficult challenge, to which few of us ever rise.

For example, King reminded the students that Nazi Germany applied the force of law to commit acts of stunning evil. Evil people created Nazi law for evil purposes. King called for his workers to have the courage to reject legal but monstrous evil like Hitler’s:

“We must never forget that everything that Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal.’ It was illegal to aid and comfort a Jew, in the days of Hitler's Germany. But I believe that if I had the same attitude then as I have now I would publicly aid and comfort my Jewish brothers in Germany if Hitler were alive today calling this an illegal process.”

King also reminded the students that the Union of South Africa was, in 1961, a white supremacist nation. In South Africa, racial justice was actually a crime. King expressed support for the resistance that Black-majority leaders offered against South Africa’s cruel, but legal, regime:

“If I lived in South Africa today in the midst of the white supremacy law in South Africa, I would join Chief Luthuli and others in saying, break these unjust laws.”

For, yes indeed, apartheid (which was legally required racial oppression) was enshrined in South African law. Yet, it was obviously wicked and unjust.

What Is Legal? What Is Right?   

These examples led King to a powerful but daring conclusion. He insisted that the students in his audience, who were organizing nonviolent resistance, actually represented tradition. That claim utterly conflicted with conventional attitudes. Yet, King gave his opponents a chance to ask themselves some hard questions. Would they have supported Hitler? South African apartheid was legal. But was it right? King put his opponents in difficult position. Were they prepared to defend some of the century’s most horrible laws? Were they prepared to defend oppression in the United States?

Two years later, King would write his famous “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” That letter, which I recommend in the highest terms, laid out, in much more detail, the same historical and philosophical principles that King had already explained in “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience.” King’s speech made nonviolent resistance into a moral obligation. King tied civil disobedience to tradition, while rejecting unjust laws. And it was in this now-forgotten speech that King laid out the philosophy that guided the Civil Rights movement for years to come. 

________________

 

Related Public Speaking Posts: 

Read First Post about King's speech: 

Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Speech, “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience:” The Civil Rights Movement’s Philosophical Foundation

Martin Luther King, Jr. at the Mountaintop in Memphis, Tennessee: A Speech for the Ages

French President Macron Reminds the USA of Its Traditions

Rabbi Michael Z. Cahana’s Sermon about the Summer of Love: Is Love the Answer to Nazism?

________________

Research Note: Radicals often look for ways to tie their ideas to tradition. In his award-winning book, The Prophetic Tradition and Radical Rhetoric in America, Professor James Darsey shows how radical speakers often quote the Hebrew prophets.

Was “Love, Law, and Civil Disobedience” totally neglected? No, not entirely. It was reprinted in several editions of an advanced communication textbook, Contemporary American Speeches, which was co-edited by my professor Richard L. Johannesen.

Cancel Culture Gone Amok: Governor Brian Kemp Was Shouted Down by His Own People

Gov. Brian Kemp, Official Photo

Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, a conservative Republican, was almost booed off the stage when he spoke yesterday at the Georgia Republican Party’s state convention, held at a resort on one of the state’s beautiful coastal islands.

He was booed by his own people. This signifies a radical turn toward increasing political polarization. Polarization means that you have fewer supporters, but your supporters are more fanatical. Absolute loyalty to Trump is becoming a Republican Party requirement. 

I have written earlier about terrible instances in which conservative rabble-rousers have chased liberal speakers off the stage, or liberals have shouted conservative speakers off the stage. What happened yesterday was different. Brian Kemp is a radical conservative whose policy positions should satisfy anyone who opposes abortion, government-financed health care, or basic pandemic precautions. Indeed, he got his biggest cheers when he reminded the audience that Georgia was the first state to reopen during the pandemic.

Earlier Post: Liberals Shouted Down Milo Yiannopoulos

Earlier Post: Milo Yiannopoulos Helped to Shout Down a Liberal Speaker

Kemp, however, made one enormous political mistake. He honestly certified the obviously accurate election results that gave Georgia’s electoral votes to Joe Biden. We all know that former President Donald Trump and his supporters have constantly and wrongly accused Georgia of mis-counting the votes. Trump’s false claim that he won the election has become the test for loyal Republicans across the country. 

During his speech, Kemp reminded his noisy audience about Georgia’s restrictive abortion laws. “We passed heartbeat legislation,” he explained. But a heckler immediately shouted, “Boo! What about the voting machines?” He reminded the crowd that he opposed critical race theory and vaccine passports. That kind of ignorance should have pleased them. Apparently it didn’t.

Kemp’s failure – his inability even to be heard at his own convention – tells us several things about Georgia’s Republican leadership:

First, it’s not all about the issues. Kemp reminded the crowd that he was rabidly conservative on every possible issue. So what? It seems that, to many in the Georgia Republican Party’s leadership today, it is all about Trump – and nothing else. If you are not 100% pro-Trump, nothing else matters.

Second, the Republican Party is becoming a house divided, a party polarized within itself. It’s not just that Republicans are polarized against Democrats. Moderate Republicans are polarized from conservative Republicans. Republicans like Kemp, who are conservative but even marginally honest, are polarized from Trump Republicans. For example, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who is running for re-election, wasn't even invited to the convention. Instead, appallingly, the convention censured him for certifying the 2020 election. 

The people who attended the Republican state convention were, pretty much by definition, the most dedicated party loyalists. They were not necessarily typical of all Republican voters. They were, however, the leadership. Photographs and video showed that the crowd was almost all-white and coronavirus masks were nowhere to be seen. And, although the audience included many Kemp supporters, they could not control the pro-Trump fanatics.

Earlier Post: Trump and the Maskless Crowd  

It didn't help that Trump has been roundly condemning Kemp every chance he gets. Some conventioneers cheered Kemp even as others booed him. Will Kemp's political career survive the onslaught? Time will tell. 

Polarization is a standard tactic of radical rhetoric. The idea is that you will have fewer supporters, but your supporters will be more dedicated. As the Republican Party systematically expels all but its most radical members, it also shrinks its voting base. Thus, it might lose any honest election. The booing crowd’s entire point was that they didn’t want an honest election. They seemed to feel that it was the governor’s job to certify a Trump victory regardless of the actual votes. Kemp explained to the crowd that the law and the Constitution required him to certify the votes. That misses the point. The conventioneers who booed Kemp showed no concern about either the law or the Constitution.

A polarized minority of the electorate cannot persuade a majority of the voters. However, many in the crowd rejected Kemp because their main goal, at this point, was to prevent honest election counting. And that, dear readers, is how a polarized minority can win elections.

No one can dispute Kemp’s conservative credentials. His conservative credentials made no difference. The anti-Kemp crowd at Jekyll Island wasn’t thinking about issues. They were thinking about power.


Earlier Post: Trump's Polarizing Rally in Kentucky: It's All About Getting People to Vote 


Technical note: the best source for people who want to understand radical rhetoric is still The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control by Bowers, Ochs, and Schulz. 

Chapter 4 of my book about the 1896 presidential campaign shows how the Democratic candidate's radical rhetoric helped him win the nomination but doomed him in the general election. Could the same happen to Republicans in upcoming elections? I would not be surprised. 

Trump and the Maskless Crowd: Masks Are a Flag Issue for Conservative Voters

So, what is it with Donald Trump and wearing a mask? Trump and his supporters have made masks into a flag issue. The coronavirus is spiraling out of control, and CDC director Robert Redfield said that we could shut it down in two months if everybody would cover their mouths and noses with a facemask. More than 231,000 people have been confirmed to have died of coronavirus in the United States, more than any other nation. A Stanford University study estimates that Trump’s rallies have spread coronavirus to about 30,000 people, 700 of whom have died. Few people wear masks at Trump rallies. I wear a mask when I go in public, and, really, it’s not that big a deal.

Communication scholars John Waite Bowers and Donovan Ochs explain that a flag issue is not important in itself. Instead, radical speakers use flag issues to represent something that people care about. Similarly, people refuse to wear masks to show that they defy authority. Maskless gatherings have become symbols of partisan loyalty. Oddly, of course, Trump is head of the government and yet tells people not to wear masks. It’s not the mask that matters; it’s the defiance. People have trouble getting angry about abstract concepts, statistics, and health trends. But masks are a simple, slightly uncomfortable thing that people can understand. It’s hard to protest the pandemic. It’s easy to protest a mask.

Earlier Post: Donald Trump Made Ilhan Omar a Flag Individual

Let’s look at what Trump said in his Dubuque, Iowa rally speech yesterday. He spotted Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds, a loyal supporter, in the crowd wearing a mask, and promptly mocked her:

“Donald Trump: Yep, by the way, you do have a great governor, you know that right? I don’t even know. I don’t even know if she’s here. Is she here? There she is. I can’t see her under all that stuff.

“Audience: (laughs).

“Donald Trump: Well, she’s definitely wearing a mask, I will say that.”

That, remember, is what he said about his friend. What about his opponents? Later in the long speech, Trump ridiculed masks:

“I see people that come in, they’re wrapped up in masks and, how you doing? Don’t touch. Don’t get close. Seriously, think of what China has done to the world. I had a group of people, not so long ago at a place, nice place. And they said, ‘President, President, could we say hello?’ They’re wrapped in masks and it’s terrible. And they said, you couldn’t hear him because the mask. One person had the world’s thickest mask I’ve ever seen. I mean, and then the scientists were there. That one’s no good. That one’s okay.” [italics added]

Look at what’s going on in that passage, and we can see how clever Trump’s persuasive methods really are. Of course public health measures are inconvenient and irritating: as Trump said, “Don’t touch. Don’t get close.” But it was China’s fault, Trump said, and therefore not his, that people need to deal with these public health mandates: “Seriously, think of what China has done to the world.” China put us in masks! Horrors!

Some Americans are indeed wearing masks. Let’s look at Trump’s complaint: “They’re wrapped up in masks and it’s terrible.” The masks, he said, were “terrible.” Not just inconvenient or uncomfortable, but terrible. He never said that the deaths were terrible, just the masks. Why, Trump complained, people at his meeting couldn’t even communicate because they were wearing masks: “And they said, you couldn’t hear him because the mask.” (Notice how Trump diverted responsibility: he himself wasn’t saying that the mask muffled people’s speech; no, “they said” that you couldn’t hear people talk.)

Trump’s comments were ridiculous – people can communicate perfectly well wearing a cloth mask – but he was pushing the buttons that he needed to push. He appealed to the defiant attitudes of people who don’t like being told what to do.

Many years ago, one of my children’s friends decided to dye her hair bright, fire-engine red. It looked awful, of course, but the hair showed that she was defying her parents. Her mother promptly took her to the beauty parlor to have the hair dyed any other color than red. The best the stylist could do was deep black. The child was defiant; the parent was defiant right back. I hope that Republican voters are more mature than a 15-year-old.

So, it’s not that the mask itself bothers Trump voters. Of course people can wear masks. Masks are not a big problem. Physicians, nurses, welders, and metalworkers wear masks all day. Many of them are Republicans. None of that mask-wearing causes a problem. A mask only becomes a problem when it becomes a flag issue – when to wear a mask symbolizes that you are submitting to authority. And so, going out in public, breathing, sneezing, and coughing on innocent people becomes a way to defy authority.

We live in a symbolic world. We salute the flag as a symbol of our country. My wedding ring is a symbol of my marriage. My neighbor’s Barefoot Nation flag symbolizes his nonconformist attitudes. Going maskless symbolizes defiance and willfulness.

Speaking as a citizen, not as a communication specialist, I do wish that conservatives could have latched onto a flag issue that didn’t have such deadly consequences. Some of my neighbors wave Trump flags that have curse words on them. That’s irritating, but it doesn’t hurt anything. Going around without a mask spreads disease. And people die.


Research note:

I talked about flag issues in chapter 4 of my book, From the Front Porch to the Front Page: McKinley and Bryan in the 1896 Presidential Campaign. I presented an earlier version of the same analysis in an article, entitled “Bryan’s ‘A Cross of Gold’: The Rhetoric of Polarization at the 1896 Democratic Convention,” that I published years ago in the Quarterly Journal of Speech. As you can see, this type of radical speech has lurked around American politics for a long time. If you click the link for “William D. Harpine’s Publications” above, you can get more information about both of those publications, including a free almost-final copy of the article.

Bowers and Ochs’ important book, The Rhetoric of Agitation and Control, has been continuously revised and is still in print. It’s a good read, and anyone who thinks that Trump is not a radical should read this book. Trump uses almost every method of radical rhetoric that Bowers and Ochs describe. Radical organizer Saul Alinsky discusses similar persuasive methods in his book Rules for Radicals.

 

Image: Donald Trump, White House photo