Mythbusting the Dream: MLK Reexamined
by Joakim Andersen
Joakim Andersen argues that the sanitized Martin Luther King myth, embraced by conservatives to promote a colorblind society, functions as a Trojan horse that conceals deeper racial tensions and the radical core of King’s true message.
A less visible project during Trump’s second presidential term has been the dismantling of what Christopher Caldwell has described as the second Constitution. This refers to the rival order built around the civil rights movement, anti-White quotas, and affirmative action. Trump has acted against the discrimination of Whites within, among other places, federal agencies. His campaign against universities also includes this aspect.
The rival Constitution that Caldwell described also has a mythology and a narrative. This includes, among other things, the struggle against segregation in the Southern states and the figure of Martin Luther King. This mythology has largely been embraced by American conservatives, who often cite King as one of their own. This is not surprising, given that he appealed to their dream of a colorblind society where black people no longer evoke guilt. King’s 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech contains the often-quoted words: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” King also distanced himself from violent protests: “We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence.” These passages align with American conservatism. But central aspects of King’s worldview are downplayed. Among them is another statement of his: “Through our scientific and technological genius we have made of this world a neighborhood; and yet we have not yet the ethical commitments to make us a brotherhood.” He also used an early form of the “no justice, no peace” sentiment in the line: “The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.” King eventually linked the fight against racism to the fight against poverty.
Regardless of these details, King is a central part of the so-called Boomer mythology. This is hardly surprising, considering the guilt felt by White conservatives and their desire for Black leaders who could promise a colorblind future. Compared to King, Malcolm X, with his more militant rhetoric about separation, was not a viable alternative. Even though the real Malcolm X moved closer to King’s vision after his pilgrimage to Mecca, and King’s rhetoric shifted leftward toward the end of his life, these developments have not left a deep mark on their respective myths. This suggests that the real King and the mythic King are not identical. It also means that the myth has elements of a Trojan horse. Behind the myth, we find the previously mentioned guilt — something King often highlighted and reinforced in passages such as: “I must say this morning that racial injustice is still the black man’s burden and the white man’s shame. It is an unhappy truth that racism is a way of life for the vast majority of white Americans…”
King’s vision also had a concrete dimension that many conservatives do not necessarily appreciate. In his view, the distribution of ownership and income was inseparable from the future brotherhood. Hence, his demand that the Founding Fathers’ declaration that “all men are created equal” should also be interpreted politically and economically. He said: “We are coming to demand that the government address itself to the problem of poverty. We read one day, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.’ But if a man doesn’t have a job or an income, he has neither life nor liberty nor the possibility for the pursuit of happiness. He merely exists.” King also astutely observed: “The problem is that we all too often have socialism for the rich and rugged free enterprise capitalism for the poor.” That the adoption of King as a mythic figure was followed by the adoption of DEI as practical policy and “whiteness critique” as hegemonic ideology is not entirely surprising.
Whether this was a deliberate attack on the King myth is hard to say. In any case, in January of this year, Trump ordered the declassification of previously secret material related to King (Executive Order 14176, Declassification of Records Concerning the Assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.). These documents reveal that under Hoover, the FBI actively monitored King, suspecting him of being a communist or influenced by communists. The released documents confirm this. King had strong ties to members of the American Communist Party. This was particularly true of his close associate Stanley Levison. According to the FBI documents: “Current and former members of the Communist Party, USA (CPUSA), have been close to King and have exerted great influence on him and the SCLC. These associations date from King’s leadership of the 1956 bus boycott by Negroes in Montgomery, Alabama, and have had King’s approbation, because the individuals involved have been identified to him for what they are.” The FBI appears to have had access to internal communications within the CPUSA. Among other things, we read: “CPUSA General Secretary Gus Hall received a report on King from Levison in February, 1962. Levison described King as ‘a wholehearted Marxist who has studied Marxism, believes in it, and agrees with it, but because of his being a minister of religion, does not dare to espouse it publicly.’” The FBI feared that the Soviet Union, through Levison and King, could gain influence over the potentially powerful SCLC.
Also incompatible with the myth is the image of King as a husband that emerges from the FBI documents. They detail numerous affairs with different women, including prostitutes, orgies, alcohol, and laughingly witnessing rapes. There are also mentions of “unnatural sexual acts.” Although in 2025 these may seem less shocking, it remains difficult to reconcile the image of the Bible-quoting pastor with reports that he laughingly encouraged a rape. This suggests that the King myth was not grounded in reality. It functioned as a Trojan horse and conveyed a misleading picture of American race relations and possible solutions. That the Boomer mythology is now being replaced by the myths of new generations — built on different emotional needs and life experiences — should, in short, be seen as a positive development.
(translated from the original Swedish article)
Related
The Conversation, “I’m an MLK scholar – and I’ll never be able to view King in the same light”
Almost all modern conservatives are liberals: they genuinely believe that deep down everyone is equal. But man is a union of body and soul, only the soul is made in the “image and likeness of God”. There is no other equality.