US Politics: Glenn Beck on Martin Luther King "A Radical Socialist Icon"

Glenn Beck stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial today, 47 years to the day after Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech at the March on Washington. He claimed to be reclaiming the "civil rights" that King pursued throughout his life. The organisers of the rally brought in King's niece to give an endorsement.

So what did Glenn Beck think in January of Martin Luther King? I've listened to this audio, of a conversation between Beck and his team on his radio programme, several times. I still can't quite --- even with the shrewdest editing --- make sense of what Beck is saying, as it verges on incoherence. However, what I think he is doing is trying to manipulate Martin Luther King into a poster boy for the "radicalised socialists" he believes are in charge of Washington.

But let's hold Beck to a simpler test: if he believes it is wrong to use the image of Martin Luther King to justify one's political agenda, what exactly was he doing in Washington DC today?

The audio begins with a statement by Julian Bond, a civil rights activist from the early 1960s to the present day:

*BOND: We don't remember the King who was the critic of capitalism is, who said...[to] Charles Fager when they were in jail together in Selma in 1965 that he thought a modified form of socialism would be the best system for the United States. We don't remember the Martin Luther King who talked ceaselessly about taking care of the masses and not just dealing with the people at the top of the ladder. So we've kind of anesthetized him. We've made him into a different kind of person than he actually was in life. And it may be that that's one reason he's so celebrated today because we celebrate a different kind of man than really existed. But he was a bit more radical. Not terribly, terribly radical but a bit more radical than we make him out to be today.*

US Video: Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” Speech (1963)
US Politics: The Daily Show on Martin Luther King (1963) and Glenn Beck (2010)

GLENN: Okay. Hold on just a second.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: This is and correct me if I'm wrong, America. Maybe I'm wrong. But I didn't think it was politically correct ever.

PAT: Oh, my, no.

GLENN: To say that Martin Luther King was a socialist. Ever. I believe this is the first time I've ever heard this from someone, you know, on the side of praising Dr. Martin Luther King. I've heard people say, oh, well, you know, he was a communist, he was a socialist.

PAT: FBI had files on him.

GLENN: Files on him! Okay, I've never heard this as praise for Martin Luther King.

PAT: No. Anybody who's ever said it has been beat down.

GLENN: Beat down. Beat down. Sarah, would you agree with that? Is that your recollection? Keith, is that your recollection? You've never heard anything like it?

SARAH: Absolutely.

GLENN: Right? Keith?

KEITH: Absolutely, yeah, this is a first.

GLENN: Got it. But listen to the words.

PAT: Wow.

GLENN: Listen to the words. We don't remember the King that was a critic of capitalism. That wanted a modified form of socialism, that thought it would be the best system for the United States, that talked ceaselessly about taking care of the masses and not just the people at the top of the ladder.

PAT: I have it again if you want to hear it in his words.

GLENN: Yeah, go ahead, yeah, yeah.

*BOND: We don't remember the King who was the critic of capitalism who said to Charles Fager when they were together in Selma in 1965 that he thought a modified form of socialism would be the best system for the United States. We don't remember the Martin Luther King who talked ceaselessly about taking care of the masses and not just dealing with the people at the top of the ladder. So we've kind of anesthetized to this.*

GLENN: Listen to this.

*BOND: We've made him into a different kind of person than he actually was in life. And it may be that that's one reason he is so celebrated today because we...*

GLENN: Stop. Stop! We celebrate a man that is different than the kind of man that really existed. And maybe that's why he's so celebrated. Do you hear this?

PAT: That's a total admission, that if Martin Luther King, if it got out that he was a socialist or a communist or what.

GLENN: He wouldn't be as celebrated.

PAT: He wouldn't be. Well, he wouldn't be.

GLENN: He wouldn't have been. Okay, so listen. So why in your wildest dreams would you do this? In your wildest dreams would the president or the chairman of the NAACP say that Martin Luther King was not terribly, terribly radical but more radical than we thought, basically a radical socialist? Why would you do that? A guy who we have combined George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. We've combined their birthdays, taken a holiday away from one of them and made it, you know, a double these two guys only deserve one day. Together, they can share it together, we'll call it President's Day. This is Martin Luther King day. Do you understand the icon that we have created? And then now to come out and say he was a radical socialist, this week, this week, this Martin Luther King holiday, why would you do that?

PAT: Hmmm.

GLENN: You are putting every chip up on the table....Why would you do that? Look what you're risking here. If radical socialism is discredited, you have then tainted the image of Martin Luther King. You have a holiday for a guy who, if America he just said, I think it's probably why we celebrate him the way we do now, because we're celebrating somebody who really didn't exist that way. He was different than that.

Now, they're either saying here, the left, that America is a radicalized, not terribly, terribly radicalized but a radicalized socialist nation and so we'll accept it now.

PAT: No.

GLENN: Or they're saying, well, that's just the way it is and I think this is probably more likely scenario that the president is under fire and we know that a radicalized socialist is a label that is going to be attached to this president and so we want to show you that a radicalized socialist is Martin Luther King and it's okay

PAT: He's got his own holiday. Right.

PAT: Perfectly fine.

GLENN: But if, if because now they are tying the fortunes of Barack Obama's policies to Martin Luther King. If radicalized socialism falls apart, what happens to the image of Martin Luther King? If America rejects that, will America be okay with a guy who I mean, the picture that is coming out of the White House to more and more people every day that these are radical socialists, some of them, Van Jones, a radical communist, that they believe in Chairman Mao. To quote Ron Bloom, power comes from the end of a gun. To quote Anita Dunn, my one of my favorite philosophers is Chairman Mao. If this is discredited, you've just put every chip you have on the table into the kitty....

Things are going to get extraordinarily difficult in America because I mean, I don't, I don't know what I don't know how to interpret this any other way. I don't know when it became politically okay to say that Martin Luther King was a radical socialist. You wouldn't even say that about President Obama. If I got on the air and said the guy is a radical socialist, which I do, they hammer me to death! Well, if it's okay that Martin Luther King was a radical socialist, why is it bad to say Barack Obama is a radical socialist? Am I reading this wrong?

PAT: I don't think so. I don't think so. We'll see.

GLENN: I'm waiting for another explanation. I...

PAT: We'll see what kind of fire, if any, Julian Bond comes under. I mean, if this is totally rejected

GLENN: No, no. Let's look for the kind of fire because this is, there are booby traps from the progressive left everywhere. I can't see the booby trap on this one, but maybe there is. There are booby traps everywhere. Let's see if I come under fire from the left for reporting Julian Bond and saying, okay, this is what he said, when did radicalized, not terribly, terribly radical, to quote Julian Bond but a radical socialist, when did that become acceptable in America? If we didn't celebrate, if he wouldn't have been as celebrated today had that news come out, when did it become okay and expect us to celebrate it today? Let's see how much fire I come under for asking that question. But look out, gang. These are the times that try men's souls. The left, look at the power arrayed with the unions and everybody else on the left. They are not going to let this one slide. They may pretend that they are being more moderate, but the uber left, if they are defending and using Martin Luther King as a radical socialist icon, they are not going to back away from socialism.

US Politics: Left-Wing Radio and the Rhetoric of Hate (Haddigan)

US Politics correspondent Lee Haddigan writes for EA:

Liberalism, as a political philosophy, has a proud tradition in the United States. Beginning with reform efforts to alleviate the hardships of industrial workers at the turn of the 20th  century, progressive politicians and activists have attempted to pursue policies over the last century that make the "American Dream" a realistic goal for all Americans. But, at the same time as advancing the notions of tolerance and equality in the United States, liberals have also shown a remarkable intolerance for dissent from their conservative opponents. A 19-page report recently issued by the conservative Media Research Center, The Real Radio Hatemongers: Left-Wing Radio Hosts’ Track Record of Vile and Vicious Rhetoric, provides the latest evidence that some liberals are as susceptible to making personal malicious attacks as their conservative adversaries.

US Politics: Glenn Beck on Martin Luther King “A Radical Socialist Icon”
US Politics: Can Obama and the Democrats Retain Control of Congress? (Haddigan)

Shortly after radio became a nationwide medium of communication in the 1920s, liberals began to attack conservatives for using it to spread a reactionary message of fear and "hate". They have tried to curb right-wing radio hosts, from the controversial "Radio Priest" Father Coughlin in the 1930s to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity today,  through federal regulations. 

The most important of these regulations was the "Fairness Doctrine". This required that every radio station, for a renewal of its licence by the Federal Communications Commission, had to include programming time for the discussion of controversial political issues, with a presentation of both sides of the topic.

Introduced by the liberal administration of President Truman in 1949, the Doctrine was revoked in 1985 by a FCC controlled by Reagan appointees, who argued it contravened the First Amendment right to free speech. In the interim, e President Kennedy and President Johnson had used the measure to blunt conservative criticisms over the airwaves of their policies. FCC enforcement eventually led to conservative Reverend Carl McIntire, in the 1970s, becoming the only radio broadcaster to lose his licence because of violations of the Doctrine. (McIntire attempted unsuccessfully to air Radio Free America from a "pirate" ship off the coast of New Jersey in 1973.)

Democrats have called for a reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine. Former President Bill Clinton argued on a progressive radio show in 2009, "Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or you ought to have more balance on the other side because essentially there has always been a lot of big money to support the right-wing talk shows."

Clinton articulated the longstanding fear of liberals that corporations, and tax-exempt foundations supported by corporations, were financing the Radical Right’s spurious attacks on progressive policies. His argument also drew on the disparity between liberal and conservative representation on national talk radio stations, with the right wing possessing a significant advantage in audience numbers. But, at the heart of liberal complaints against conservative radio hosts, from the thirties to today, is the contention that they foment discord in America with their "Toxic Talk: How the Radical Right Has Poisoned America’s Airwaves", the title of a new book by Bill Press.

Deep in the liberal psyche is the contention that the Radical Right, the so called fright-peddlers and hatemongers of the early 1960s, created the climate for the assassination of President Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. The MRC report includes the contentious assertion of Mike Malloy (The Mike Malloy Show, August 26, 2009) on his sadness at the death of Ted Kennedy: “I remember feeling that way in 1963 and again in 1968, when his two brothers were murdered by the right-wing in this country.”

Liberals fear that the same fate awaits President Obama, a tragedy that Ed Schultz suggests some right-wing radio hosts would welcome: “Sometimes I think they want Obama to get shot. I do. I really think that there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out.”

And, apparently, conservative talk radio does not confine itself to encouraging the murder of Presidents. Other bizarre claims made by Malloy include: Limbaugh and Beck want to see repeats of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing; Bill O’Reilly inspires the killing of doctors who provide abortions; and a security guard at the Holocaust Museum in Washington was killed because of the “poison” pumped out over the airwaves by conservative broadcasters. On a show last September, Malloy declared, "Glenn Beck rails against census workers, and inspires his people to go out and kill one for sport.” And not only did Beck galvanize the murderer, he welcomed the atrocity: “I will guarantee you that O’Reilly and Beck and the rest of these monsters on the neo-fascist right love this stuff. It gives them something else to talk about. It’s sport.”

Liberal radio hosts do not limit themselves to alleging that right-wing figures whip up hate. They also engage in personal attacks on conservatives, some of which contain material that, if aired by Glenn Beck, would lead to his instant dismissal by Fox News. Malloy in October 2008 argued that Michele Bachmann, a Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota, is a “hatemonger” who “would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps. She’s the type of person who would have had no problem sending typhoid-smeared blankets to Native American families awaiting deportation to reservations.” Molloy concluded, “This is an evil bitch from hell. I mean, just an absolute evil woman.”

But even that invective pales compared to Montel Williams almost a year ago when he urged Bachmann, “So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead!  I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to – or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.”

As the most prominent of conservative radio broadcasters, Rush Limbaugh receives most of the vitriol aired by some liberal radio hosts. Malloy has hoped “that Rush Limbaugh will choke to death on his own throat fat”. A parody song for the Randi Rhodes Show in May included the verse, “He’s a fat conservative butthead/Sick Republican sleazeball/Fearmongering scumbag/Egotistical asswipe/Mean-spirited, hog-wallowing, fat conservative putz/With the face of ahorse’s ass/Mega dildos, Rush!” Hardly the way to build a bridge to tolerance and respect for the differing political philosophies in the United States.

Of course, Rush Limbaugh has no interest in helping foster a spirit of bi-partisanship. The liberal media watchdog group, Media Matters for America, features a link to the "Limbaugh Watch". The site also contains extensive scrutiny (and easily accessed archives) of the misinformation presented in media appearances by Glenn Beck and other conservative broadcasters.

On the other side, the conservative Media Research Centre was founded five years ago to counter what it claimed was a liberal media bias on network news shows. Though not as easily searchable as Media Matters, the MRC website offers extensive evidence for the conservative lament that the media is controlled by liberals, a complaint that dates back to the years of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

As befits the importance of a free media to a healthy democracy, both these sites illustrate by contrast that political debate can be vigorous in the United States. Since the days of Roosevelt’s "fireside chats", however, liberals have been successful in portraying themselves as the responsible and principled political persuasion, opposed by a hatemongering and rabid right wing. Conservatives, understandably, resent their marginalization as the purveyors of extremism and react in a less than civil manner.

The truth is that, for all the instances of red-baiting in America (which continues today with the claims Obama is a socialist), there are similar occurrences of brown-baiting --- comparing conservatives to fascists --- by liberals. In fact, a credible argument can be made that McCarthyism was the result of an enraged conservative minority retaliating against attempts by liberals during World War II to smear all right-wing isolationists as fascist traitors. Until liberals realise that they are part of the reason for the current incivility in political discussion, there appears little likelihood that the nature and tone of debate will change in the United States.

US Politics: The Daily Show on Martin Luther King (1963) and Glenn Beck (2010)

Apparently a few people are gathering in Washington DC, in front of the Lincoln Memorial, to hear radio and TV talk-show host Glenn Beck reclaim "civil rights" for America on the same spot --- or rather, in Beck's words, "two flights [of steps] down --- from where Martin Luther King delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech on the same day in 1963:

Watch US-based video or UK-based video.....

US Politics: Is This the Beginning --- or the Beginning of the End --- for Glenn Beck? (Haddigan)

EA's US Politics correspondent Lee Haddigan writes:

This coming weekend the US capital will be invaded by a conservative army. With the main entertainment to be provided by anti-establishment ‘barbarians’ Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, supported by a Tea Party growing increasingly frustrated with Washington elites, it may be an opportune moment for members of the Obama Administration to take a break before November's mid-term elections and get out of town.

More importantly, this weekend is meant --- at least for supporters of the gathering --- to mark the beginning for a grassroots conservatism committed to changing US politics in the future. Not just for the next two or ten years but, under Glenn Beck’s "Plan" to be unveiled on Saturday, for a century.

The festivities begin sedately enough on Friday with the 2010 Defending the American Dream Summit. Hosted by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, this conference of leading conservative activists and policymakers will concentrate on giving last-minute instructions to local organizers. It ends with a special "Tribute to Ronald Reagan" dinner.

The same night, Glenn Beck will be hosting a "Divine Destiny" evening at the Kennedy Center. Attendance is free, on a first-come, first-(re)served ticket basis, but the audience, according to Beck's website, will be mainly pastors, ministers, and clergy. Beck regards these religious leaders of the present asthe vanguard of the movement to re-establish in America a government based on moral values.

Those who see Beck as a deliberately controversial clown may be surprised at what he claims is the intent of the evening. He invites those who “are sick and tired of hearing about how divided America has become” to join him for a night “that will help heal your soul”. Beck will be joined by nationally-known religious figures of all faiths, aided by uplifting music, to provide an event that “will leave you with a renewed determination to look past the partisan differences and petty problems that fill our airwaves and instead focus our shared values, principles and strong belief that faith can play an essential role in reuniting the country”.

But "Divine Destiny"’ is just the warm-up for the main event. On Saturday, Beck and Sarah Palin will be the main speakers at the "Restoring Honor Rally" in front of the Lincoln Memorial. Held on the 47th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s "I Have a Dream" speech, the Rally is the culmination of nine months' planning by Beck to present his "Plan" for the future of America.

On 21 November 2009, Beck announced in front of 25,000 people in Florida that he was writing a book that would show Americans how to change the current political climate. He argued that the country could not rely on a leader or a party to end the “bipartisan corruption in Washington”. He maintained that instead, “I have come to realize that the only one who can truly save our country…is us.” Each individual, parent and child, must educate themselves as a family in the values that would lead them to fight on the “battlefield of ideas” to restore the America of maximum freedom envisaged by the Founding Fathers.

To underscore the religious foundations of this weekend's rally, Beck used his radio programme of 18 July to appeal to listeners to spend 40 days and 40 nights before the event praying for the country. (Jesus and his trials in the desert were not mentioned specifically, but the allusion was clear enough.) Beck asked his audience to consider in detail the importance to them personally of their "faith, hope and charity", and he ended this segment of his show with a plea for everyone to change their lives for the better over those next 40 days, to show more faith, hope and charity, and to join him at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial: “Make a vow to yourself. It will not end with me, not on my watch.”

Surprisingly, the event is a non-political rally where no signs of any sort (except flags) will be allowed. It has been organized to pay tribute to the armed forces, and all proceeds will go to the Special Operations Warriors Foundation, a non-profit organization that helps veterans. The rally will celebrate America’s heritage and traditional values, and it will ask participants to adopt the personal virtues of great leaders of the past to build a new United States. Beck will tie those aims into the promotion of the ideas in Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure, due for publication later in the year.

The volunteer marshals for the Rally will be supplied by the Tea Party Patriots. So, it was a natural logistical progression for that group to organize a general Tea Party protest meeting for the Sunday at Upper Senate Park.  The rally will be dedicated to the Tea Party Patriots' slogan to "Repeal, Reduce, Restore": “repeal legislation forced on us by a corrupt Congress, reduce the size and scope of government, and restore the founding principles of the Constitution.” Taking place only two weeks before the more-widely publicised 9-12 meetings, this event will provide an interesting indication of Tea Party strength and enthusiasm.

Those with a good memory may recall that Beck has staged mega-events in the past to support the troops. Between March and May of 2003, just before and after the invasion of Iraq, he organized a series of "Rallies for America". And here we come to the troubling enigma that is Glenn Beck. Does he truly believe in the integrity of the message he preaches? Or, as his many critics claim, does he just spout a nonsense that appeals to "paranoid" Americans as part of his building the brand "Glenn Beck" for personal financial gain?

Although this weekend will be an  indicator of conservative strength heading into the mid-term election, it is of much more interest as a sign of what future impact Glenn Beck will have on the movement. "The Plan" he will present in front of the Lincoln Memorial has taken time and thought, and it is obviously a vital part of his attempt to portray himself as the intellectual guru of conservatism. Many may not like his interpretation of America’s past or his well-intentioned ideas for the future, but there is little doubt that Beck asks questions of his audience that require an understanding of tradition and community in the United States.

Unfortunately for Beck, with his troubled personal history, and the example of similar populists of the past (Coughlin, McCarthy, Hargis, etc.), this could prove to be the zenith of his career and influence. Beck clearly views himself as a Martin Luther King-like figure who will lead conservatives back to their civil rights in a Promised Land from which "progressivism" expelled them from at the turn of the last century.

Beck's problem is that. after Washington, he does not have a Birmingham or Selma to maintain his march for a virtuous America. So, even if you hate The Glenn Beck Show, have a little sympathy for him. I suspect that after this weekend, as an addict to more and more adulation, he will begin the slide into oblivion that awaits all populist leaders who search without end for the next thrill.

US Politics and Media: Why Glenn Beck Is Good for America (Haddigan)

The history of the United States is one of extremes, a tale of how contending visions of the past should shape the nation’s future. The concept of "America" is a continuous conflict between a respect for traditional explanations of the individual’s responsibilities in a virtuous society and a yearning to unleash modern philosophies of the "Rights of Man".

This battle, since the first settlements in America, has been, largely fought out in the media. Glenn Beck on the Right, and Chris Matthews on the Left, are but the latest manifestations of the eternal struggle for the American Soul.

Recognition of the long history of partisan division in the US over fundamental ideas about politics is needed to calm the disquiet Beck and Matthews provoke in contemporary society. Both might promote an ideology of fear of the "other side", but America has prospered in the past --- and will in the future --- despite dire warnings about their predecessors and successors in the American media. Indeed, you can argue convincingly that the United States benefits from the existence of a partisan media.

The political media have continually forced the populace to evaluate what it means to be "American". Through struggles from the Pilgrims and Puritans through the revolutionaries of the War for Independence to the Civil War, in the conflicts to come in Populism and Progessivism, Fundmentalism (creationism) and Social Gospelism (evolutionism), New Dealism and Reaganism, Cold War conservatism and liberal counter-culture, the American media of the time played a central role in defining the terms on which the often acrimonious debate took place.

Because of our somewhat quaint notion that the past was more civil and polite than the present, aided by the self-perpetuating but false myth of the generation who came to (im)maturity in the 1960s that they revolutionised society, we fail to appreciate that a partisan media is not a modern phenomenon. Our ancestors, as long as visual images have existed, have displayed a sense of impropriety in criticising opponents that would make some today blush. See, for instance, scatological woodcut images (most people of the time couldn’t read) that were used as propaganda to defame the Pope during the early Protestant Reformation of the 1500s in Europe. You may hate Glenn Beck, or Chris Matthews, but these (extremely) sacrilegious cartoons and accompanying doggerel verses will put into perspective the limits that our modern society places on acceptable political discourse. (http://www.uoregon.edu/~dluebke/Reformations441/ReformationSatires.html)

America’s history of partisan conflict, and the role of the media, is more a rollicking and rambunctuous series of colourful disputes and incidents than a threat to American democracy (although Alexander Hamilton may have disagreed, since he was fatally wounded in a duel with Aaron Burr in 1804 after Burr took umbrage at Hamilton’s criticisms of him in the press). The government have attempted to tame the freedom of expression of both the press and the people, most notably in the Sedition Acts of 1798 and 1918 and the Smith Act of 1940, but have failed to sustain a constitutional case for the argument that "crying fire", in the political theatre at least, is a "clear and present danger" to the nation’s security.

For a short period in its early years, the US did display a remarkable commitment to the idea that "disinterested" politicians could represent the country as a whole. George Washington succeeded in portraying this image, and following presidents laboured to sustain the illusion that the Chief Executive was a neutral approach who umpired the inevitable conflicts in American society (a myth that still held enough emotional sway for Eisenhower to use it in the 1950s).

But American politics changed in 1832 with the election of Andrew Jackson after a populist appeal to the masses, and it became the public-image, spin-dominated spectacle we know today with the election of William Henry Harrison in 1840.

(Of particular interest in the Harrison campaign was the Whigs' profligate distribution of whisky to persuade, or confound, voters to support the original log-cabin candidate. The whisky was handed out in bottles from the E. C. Booz distillery, leading to "booze" becoming a common term for alcohol in America.)

One reason for the overall civility of contemporary political debate, despite what some might regard as the extremist rabble-rousing of Beck and Matthews, is the changing definition of the word tolerance in Britain and in America. When the two countries (at different times) announced the establishment of religious tolerance as a guiding principle of popular democracy, they saw the word as meaning an individual had "to put up with" different religious opinions, even though they may regard them as evil or degenerate. It meant no individual could harm another, or aggress against them, because of their religion.

It did not mean, however, that the individual had to understand, empathize, or respect the tenets of a different faith. Behind the original conception of the tolerance of religion, and freedom of political expression, lay the understanding that both were a battleground where conflicting ideas should be, befitting their essential importance to mankind, fought out with vigour and conviction. Politics and religion, it was assumed, were so crucial to an individual’s definition of their identity that they would be debated with passion, not discussed lifelessly in a soulless debating chamber.

Beck and Matthews display some of that vitality, and as a result they and their like energise the American political debate. They force Americans to question the views they believe in by presenting a no-holds-barred alternative. And with their reliance on examining current events in the light of the nation’s history they allows each person to decide what it means to be an "American".

Beck and Matthews are not a threat to American democracy. They are, in fact, part of the reason why the United States retains a more than passing and rhetorical interest in the role of the individual in a just society.