Serendipitously, while reading a book by a leader today of the American conservative movement, I came to her discussion of the greatness of Martin Luther King, Jr. whose day it is:

Famously, Dr. King called not for a rejection of America’s founding principles, but for American to “rise up to live out the true meaning of its creed.”

. . . .

It’s a shame not everyone wants to quote Dr. King these days. What made Martin Luther King, Jr., a great and effective leader is that he appealed to our better angels. (more…)

Perhaps the best way to honor Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on his day is simply to quote from his greatest speech, one of the greatest speeches in American history:

In a sense we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

. . . .

I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties 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 my four 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.

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 nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers.

. . . .

This will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with a new meaning, “My country, ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.”

. . . .

When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

According to a poll which has been shown to Governor Brown, a significant majority of our fellow Californians oppose increasing taxes to balance the state’s budget: “Asked whether they’d prefer ‘less government and lower taxes’ or ‘slightly higher taxes for better government services,’ 57% opted for lower taxes.”

This “voter survey,” according to the Los Angeles Times was “conducted by veteran Democratic pollster Jim Moore.”  So, it’s a Democratic poll for a Democratic governor.

The article did indicate that Brown is not entirely following in the footsteps of his counterpart in the Land of Lincoln as he is proposing “cutting employees’ take-home pay by 8% to 10%.”  (I’m assuming this refers to public employees.)  But, the report hints that he may indeed pull a page from Illinois Governor Quinn since reporter George Skelton claims he’ll need to ”Persuade voters that stanching the red ink in Sacramento is necessary to rebuild the California economy and create jobs.”

Um, that sounds like a tax increase is in the offing (or Skelton wants one to be).  Yet, stanching the red ink alone won’t be enough to rebuild the California economy and create jobs.

If the governor wants to do that, he’s going to have to cut taxes and reduce regulations.  Hey, it’s what a majority of Californians want, at least as concerns the tax cuts.

So writes the Charleston Daily Mail’s Don Surber about the sudden calls on the left for “civil discourse.”

Perhaps, I’ll take these making such cries seriously if they making them can point to statements they made between December 12, 2000 and January 20, 2009 calling for civil discourse and chiding Bush-haters for their calumny against the then-Republican chief executive (or, for the first 40 days of that time-frame chief executive-elect).  Did Paul Krugman denounce left-wingers for coarsening the level of debate?

Did any of those on the left of the political spectrum do so?  I’m sure there were a few, maybe even among the editors of the New York Times.  We should take seriously only those who provide evidence that they criticized the calumny and lambasted leftists who cried, “Bush lied.”

“The left,” Surber writes, summing it up, “wants us to be civil — after being so uncivil for a decade.”

Read the whole thing.  It’ll help you understand why some conservatives do not want civil discourse.  Seems they just want to give certain voices on the left a taste of their own medicine.

I don’t share their view, but do sympathize with their sentiment.   Why should they be civil to those who refused to show the same courtesy to conservatives and elected Republicans.

RELATED:   Pam Meister, ‘Civil’ Discourse: A One-Way Street?

UPDATE:  On the debates “that journalists only have with themselves“:

Obviously, even The New York Times eventually got the story right, and the facts eventually won out (though apologies have yet to materialize). But it is also abundantly clear that many of the people and institutions piously speechifying about the desperate need to moderate the political discourse had no problem falsely indicting others in a horrendous murder, not because they knew the charge was true but solely because they desperately wanted it to be.

(Via Instapundit.)