Delivered with some gusto, Cornell West explains why the use of Martin Luther King’s bible during President Obama’s inauguration was ill-advised.

Obama might be trying to fix economic inequality in free society, but West brings up at the half way point the role that the prison industrial complex has in punishing the poor.

Furthermore, the Obama administrations expanding drone program and the crimes against humanity in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Guantanamo means Obama can not legitimately claim to be a righteous inheritor of MLK’s non-violent message.

What do you think? Was the use of MLK’s bible clumsy? Worse? Conceited? Obama has always been cast as a sharp-minded fellow, able to see beyond platitudes and any entourage of yes-men, but perhaps Obama and his inner-circle have started to believe their own hype?

What would people have said if George W. Bush had asked to lay his hand on MLK’s bible during his inauguration? He and Obama fought and are fighting the same wars abroad.

About these ads