OPINION
6A
THE DAILY ASTORIAN • MONDAY, JANUARY 18, 2016
Founded in 1873
STEPHEN A. FORRESTER, Editor & Publisher
LAURA SELLERS, Managing Editor
BETTY SMITH, Advertising Manager
CARL EARL, Systems Manager
JOHN D. BRUIJN, Production Manager
DEBRA BLOOM, Business Manager
HEATHER RAMSDELL, Circulation Manager
‘I have a dream’
AP Photo/File
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., head of the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, addresses marchers during his “I Have a Dream” speech
at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 28, 1963.
Which nation
do we want?
Martin Luther King responded
to injustice with optimism
T
he contrast between President Obama’s State of the Union
and what Republican presidential candidates are saying is pro-
found. In the simplest terms, it was about how one chooses to view
America’s future — optimistically or pessimistically. The presi-
dent spoke encouragingly about new opportunities. Donald Trump
and his competitors talk mainly about excluding whole swaths of
groups that America once welcomed.
When South Carolina Gov.
Nikki Haley responded to
President Obama’s speech by
encouraging legal immigration,
Trump and other Republicans
pounced. One GOP critic said
that Trump should deport Nikki
Haley. All of this prompted The
Wall Street Journal’s editorial
page to say: “A party that rejects
Nikki Haley as a spokesperson
is one that really doesn’t want to
build a governing majority.”
There is something about this
that is relevant to today’s holiday
that honors Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr. In response to the racial
violence of the Jim Crow era, Dr.
King chose to lead what might be
called an optimistic resistance.
King looked at segregation, in-
timidation of blacks at the polls
and lynchings and he focused
on what was possible to make
America a better place.
The movement that Dr. King
led caused changes that made life
better for African Americans. He
also liberated the South from a
debilitating way of life. Though
large parts of it are still less suc-
cessful than the U.S. as a whole,
desegregation, voting rights and
other initiatives partially weaned
the South of its crippling adher-
ence to outmoded economic and
social patterns.
There was a backlash to the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, which
FYI:
King’s movement inspired.
Oregon State University political
scientist Bill Lunch discovered
it during interviews he did with
a Republican right-wing splinter
group in 1986. One of the group’s
followers’ dominant motivations
was repeal of the Civil Rights Act,
as it pertained to the advancement
of blacks as well as women.
T
he anti-immigrant theme
of the Republican pres-
idential primary debates is a
reminder that racism is always
with us. Overall, Republican
hopefuls for the White House
have far more in common with
1960s white southern dema-
gogue Gov. George Wallace
than with the hopeful and as-
pirational Dr. King. King was
about lifting up, while 2016’s
Republican presidential ¿eld is
all about putting down: Putting
down one another, putting
down America’s success, put-
ting down immigrants. They
are a sour bunch, with mes-
sages deeply at odds with their
professed patriotism.
America crossed an important
line in 1964. We began rejecting
the politics of racial division and
set course for a future where ev-
ery child can aspire to greatness.
But we’re not going back to
a nation where bigotry is set in
statute.
Clippings from the press of the
Paci¿c Northwest and the nation
It’s time for change
in the rural West
F
ederal agencies hold 50 percent of
the land in the West. The real issue
isn’t that they own the land, but that
they too often administer it poorly, and
without regard to the local community.
Decisions take too long because the
bureaucracy is paralyzed by analysis
required in futile attempts to prevent
environmental lawsuits. Agency lead-
ership too often ignores the clear intent
of legislation in favor of political pol-
icy, and gives greater consideration to
the opinions of distant interests than to
local property owners and lease hold-
ers who depend on the best steward-
ship of these lands to maintain their
livelihoods.
The bureaucracy has become too
big, too unresponsive.
— The Capital Press
T
his is the conclusion of
the speech delivered by
the Rev. Martin Luther King,
Jr., on the steps of the Lincoln
Memorial in Washington,
D.C., Aug. 28, 1963:
I say to you today, my friends,
that in spite of the dif¿culties and
frustrations of the moment I still
have a dream. It is a dream deeply
rooted in the American dream.
I have a dream that one day this
nation will rise up and live out the
true meaning of its creed: “We hold
these truths to be self-evident; that
all men are created equal.” I have a
dream that one day on the red hills
of Georgia the sons of former slaves
and the sons of former slave owners
will be able to sit down together at
the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even
the state of Mississippi, a desert
state sweltering with the heat of
injustice and oppression, will be
transformed into an oasis of free-
dom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little
children will one day live in a na-
tion where they will not be judged
by the color of their skin but by the
content of their character.
I have a dream today.
I have a dream that one day the
state of Alabama, whose governor’s
lips are presently dripping with the
words of interposition and nulli¿-
cation, will be transformed into a From every mountain-side Let free-
situation where little black boys and dom ring.
And if America is to be a great
black girls will be able to join hands
with little white boys and white nation this must become true. So
girls and walk together as sisters let freedom ring from the prodi-
and brothers.
gious hilltops of New Hampshire.
I have a dream today.
Let freedom ring from the mighty
I have a dream that
mountains of New
one day every valley
York. Let freedom
‘Free at
shall be exalted, every
ring from the height-
hill and mountain shall
Alleghenies of
last! Free ening
be made low, the rough
Pennsylvania!
places will be made
Let freedom ring
at last!
plains and the crooked
from the snowcapped
places will be made Thank God Rockies of Colorado!
straight and the glory
Let freedom ring
almighty, from the curvaceous
of the Lord shall be
revealed and all Àesh
peaks of California!
we are
shall set it together.
But not only that;
This is our hope.
let freedom ring from
free at
This is the faith with
Stone Mountain of
which I return to the
last!’
Georgia!
South. With this faith
Let freedom ring
we will be able to hew out of the from Lookout Mountain of Tennes-
mountain of despair a stone of hope. see!
With this faith we will be able to
Let freedom ring from every hill
transform the jangling discords of and molehill of Mississippi. From
our nation into a beautiful sympho- every mountainside, let freedom ring.
ny of brotherhood. With this faith
When we let freedom ring, when
we will be able to work together, to we let it ring from every village and
pray together, to struggle together, every hamlet, from every state and
to go to jail together, to stand up for every city, we will be able to speed
freedom together, knowing that we up that day when all of God’s chil-
will be free one day.
dren, black men and white men,
This will be the day when all of Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and
God’s children will be able to sing Catholics, will be able to join hands
with new meaning: My country, ’tis and sing in the words of the old Ne-
of thee, Sweet land of liberty, Of gro spiritual, “Free at last! Free at
thee I sing: Land where my fathers last! Thank God almighty, we are
died, Land of the pilgrims’ pride, free at last!”
Is vast inequality necessary?
fact, the top 0.1 percent
hundreds or thousands of
times greater than average.
consists mainly of business
This is the view expressed
executives, and while some
of these executives may
ow rich do we need the rich in a widely quoted recent
essay
by
venture
capitalist
have made their fortunes by
to be?
Paul Graham, and it’s pop-
being associated with risky
That’s not an idle question. It is, ular in Silicon Valley — that
startups, most probably got
arguably, what U.S. politics are sub- is, among people who are
where they are by climbing
stantively about.
paid hundreds or thousands
well-established corporate
ladders. And the rise in in-
Liberals want to raise taxes on of times as much as ordi-
comes at the top largely re-
high incomes and use the proceeds nary workers.
Paul
Second, we could have
Àects the soaring pay of top
to strengthen the social safety net;
Krugman
executives, not the rewards
conservatives want to do the reverse, huge inequality based large-
claiming that tax-the-rich policies hurt ly on luck. In the classic old movie to innovation.
But the real question, in any case,
everyone by reducing the incentives to “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre,”
an old prospector explains that gold is is whether we can redistribute some of
create wealth.
Now, recent experience has not worth so much — and those who ¿nd the income currently going to the elite
been kind to the conservative posi- it become rich — thanks to the labor few to other purposes without crip-
tion. President Barack Obama pushed of all the people who went looking pling economic progress.
through a substantial rise in top tax for gold but didn’t ¿nd it. Similarly,
Don’t say that redistribution is in-
rates, and his health care reform was we might have an economy in which herently wrong. Even if high incomes
the biggest expansion of the welfare those who hit the jackpot aren’t nec- perfectly reÀected productivity, mar-
state since LBJ. Conservatives con¿- essarily any smarter or harder working ket outcomes aren’t the same as moral
dently predicted disaster, just as they than those who don’t, but just happen justi¿cation. And given the reality that
did when Bill Clinton raised taxes to be in the right place at the right time. wealth often reÀects either luck or
Third, we could have huge inequal- power, there’s a strong case to be made
on the top 1 percent. Instead, Obama
has ended up presiding over the best ity based on power: executives at large for collecting some of that wealth in
corporations who get taxes and using it to make society as
job growth since the
to set their own com- a whole stronger, as long as it doesn’t
1990s. Is there, how-
pensation, ¿nancial destroy the incentive to keep creating
ever, a longer-term Inequality is
wheeler-dealers who more wealth.
case in favor of vast
inevitable;
get rich on inside in-
inequality?
And there’s no reason to believe
formation
or
by
col-
It won’t surprise
that
it would. Historically, America
the vast
lecting undeserved achieved its most rapid growth and
you to hear that many
fees from naive in- technological progress ever during the
members of the eco-
inequality
vestors.
nomic elite believe
1950s and 1960s, despite much higher
of America
As I said, the real top tax rates and much lower inequali-
that there is. It also
economy contains ty than it has today.
won’t surprise you to
today isn’t.
elements of all three
learn that I disagree,
In today’s world, high-tax, low-in-
stories. It would be equality countries like Sweden are
that I believe that the
economy can Àourish with much less foolish to deny that some people are, in also both highly innovative and home
concentration of income and wealth fact, a lot more productive than average. to many business startups. This may
at the very top. But why do I believe It would be equally foolish, however, to in part be because a strong safety net
deny that great success in business (or, encourages risk-taking: People may be
that?
I ¿nd it helpful to think in terms actually, anything else) has a strong willing to prospect for gold, even if a
of three stylized models of where ex- element of luck — not just the luck of successful foray won’t make them quite
treme inequality might come from, being the ¿rst to stumble on a highly as rich as before, if they know they
with the real economy involving ele- pro¿table idea or strategy, but also the won’t starve if they come up empty.
luck of being born to the right parents.
ments from all three.
So coming back to my original
And power is surely a big factor, question, no, the rich don’t have to be
First, we could have huge inequal-
ity because individuals vary hugely in too. Reading someone like Graham, as rich as they are. Inequality is inev-
their productivity: Some people are you might imagine that America’s itable; the vast inequality of America
just capable of making a contribution wealthy are mainly entrepreneurs. In today isn’t.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
New York Times News Service
H