Representing Anger

Should leaders who speak on behalf of a group elevate rather than debase?

On the one hand there is Martin Luther King Jr. who was a man who inspired and elevated mankind. On the other, Al Sharpton who unapologetically acted as the mouthpiece for a black teenage girl who falsely claimed that she had been raped by white men, who called a Jewish landlord a “white interloper” that resulted in an attack on the landlord’s store that left eight people dead, and who was the focus of a 67-count indictment over financial problems.

Which of these men makes an impression that is elevated? Aren't those for whom Sharpton purports to speak for concerned about the lack of dignity and elevated behavior? When the black community compares and contrasts those that speak on their behalf, are they equally proud of having MLK and Sharpton speak for them?

Is there a point where one's unapologetic past so sullies one's reputation that they no longer can represent a group? Shouldn't the group be proud of the person speaking on their behalf? Doesn't it seem that a spokesperson should make a distinguished impression on others? Wasn't this one of the great characteristics of MLK who concerned himself with the content of his and other's character?

Apparently the more angry you are, the more authentic you are as a leader of a group. Only angry women, blacks, hispanics, poor, etc. seem to be qualified to speak on behalf of their group. Why aren't Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, JC Watts, Juan Williams or Clarence Thomas considered 'leaders' of the black community? Why aren't Sarah Palin, Ann Romney, Michelle Malkin, Michele Bachmann or Laura Ingraham considered spokespersons for women?

Because they are not angry. Which also means they aren't on the left.

No comments: