Why or Why not?
Obviously he wouldn't make a good president dead.
TASTEFUL ANSWERS ONLY>
Others will be promptly reported.
2006-12-09 16:36:15 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
He would have been a great President. I don't think he would be alive long enough for him to fufill his goals however. He had the charisma to get people gathered together. The genius to realize that Vietnam was a mistake form the start and he has been to the bottom of the world and brought (with help from others like Malcolm X) the United States to what we see it today where people like Mike Richards get destroyed if they show any sign of being racist. The reason why i saw he would not be alive is because his views are against the elite mindset. if he were to try and dismantle the CIA like JFK was going to do, he'd be kileld the same way. Also, the Bay of Pigs was neccesary, that's why American troops did not even fight in it and it was a disaster if you remeber correctly. I highly recommend watching the episode of the Boondocks where MLK Jr. comes back to life and gives the folks in America a talking too.
The reason why he was "paranoid" is because of the CIA program called MK-Ultra in which the CIA infiltrated and sought to sabotage the civil rights groups in the United States. heck, Malcom X was killed because of it. There are also legitimate questrions surrounding the assassinatio of MLK Jr.
2006-12-09 16:57:56 · answer #1 · answered by drecarter04 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Probably not...
Dr. King was an excellent man, brilliant leader of people, but that isn't all that is needed for the presidency.
While it is an ugly truth a president can not be a pacifist. There are situations that require action and violence. JFK and the Bay of Pigs, FDR, Truman, Lincoln.
There is also a need to be a little manipulative (sounds horrible I know) but many other governments don't "play nice" or by any sort of ethical rules.
The sad fact is the presidency is not suited for the "nice guy". It's suited for a guy that appears to be a "nice guy" but has a power hungry side.
2006-12-10 00:45:57 · answer #2 · answered by mrtryitall 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
During the time when he came into national prominence, this country was very divided. In many ways he helped to divide this country. In others, he helped to eventually bring people together. He helped people to see the ugliness in our hearts. I am not sure that he would have made a good president, at least in the 1960's. It would have further divided this country. We came close to a civil war during that time. It wasn't just civil rights. The Vietnam war was going on and the country had a number of issues to confront. I think he would have had a difficult time ruling during that time.
2006-12-10 00:50:59 · answer #3 · answered by Flyby 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think he would have been a wonderful president. He was compassionate and eloquent. He was charismatic which would lead to Congress being more likely to enact his policies which is key for presidential success. But I think he would never accept the job. He was not all about fame and power. He was all about helping his fellow man. That was his mission and being president would cause him to have to focus on other things. He had one mission in life, and although his life was cut tragically short, his legacy has fulfilled that mission in life. God bless him.
2006-12-10 01:36:32 · answer #4 · answered by sfs18 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, he wouldn't have.
While his ideas were good, he was an anti-establishment person. He also had a trouble trusting those close to him, those close to him didn't trust him and he had a number of personal problems that would have distracted him from leading the country.
The easiest way to destroy idealism is to see how the political world really works. It's nice to say we should all be equal, but now put that into a bill form and get it through Congress.
2006-12-10 00:47:04 · answer #5 · answered by jerry 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Sure, in the mode of Clinton and Kennedy. He messed around on his wife, he was totally without a clue as to anything outside of his realm of influence. He was a bigot. He was a liar.
All necessary to be a president.
2006-12-10 01:29:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If you mean a president that holds rallys and marches for the betterment of ONE race , yea then he would have made a good prez.
2006-12-10 00:49:36 · answer #7 · answered by caciansf 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely Dr. King was a fine man
2006-12-10 00:38:20 · answer #8 · answered by mrlebowski99 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
no. King was a great man. But he couldn't have done both jobs.
2006-12-10 00:41:32 · answer #9 · answered by ὀκτάπους 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely GREAT!!!
2006-12-10 01:01:32 · answer #10 · answered by Joey's Back 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋