Values Added: Porktastic Edition (Sarah Posner & Michael B. Dougherty)

[Bloggingheads]

[Wonderment]

Don't miss that Paul campaign ad about Newt that Sarah and Michael reference in the diavlog.

If I can be forgiven a violent metaphor, the ad really drives a stake through Gingrich's political heart. RIP, Newt.

I'm really rooting for Dr. Paul to triumph in the Iowa caucuses, as Michael suggests he may.

Whatever his flaws, and I concede they are many, Ron Paul is the only major-party peace candidate out there this cycle, and it's heartening to know that his counter-militarism, counter-exceptionalism message is being heard.

[graz]

Truth be told.

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by graz

Truth be told.

Yes, I love that moment at 57 seconds when Dr. Paul says, "We have to be honest with ourselves." (You know something is happening but you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Gingrich?)

Gingrich is smirking and Santorum is rolling his eyes, but talking truth to power on national television has got to throw them off their game.

Paul's message is utterly heretical in both parties, but it's especially cognitively dissonant to his über-exceptionalist pro-Iraq War colleagues on the debating stage. How did a guy whose foreign policy views are compatible with those of Noam Chomsky and Dennis Kucinich even get invited to the venue among Republican presidential wannabes, much less share a podium and a mic as an equal? It's like an abolitionist suddenly running for president of the Confederacy. (Who knew that 15% of the white South opposed slavery?)

I also like how Chomsky references Eisenhower in the post-debate clip. It's a message to the Republican base: go back to your pre-Nixonian, pre-Reaganista roots, i.e., when you had enough cognition to experience dissonance about creeping and catastrophic militarism.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

How did a guy whose foreign policy views are compatible with those of Noam Chomsky and Dennis Kucinich even get invited to the venue among Republican presidential wannabes, much less share a podium and a mic as an equal?

He had to have compensating benefits (i.e., be especially nutty in other ways).

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by miceelf

He had to have compensating benefits (i.e., be especially nutty in other ways).

I don't look at it that way. What matters for me is that Paul is demonstrating that there is a strong and vocal peace constituency among Republicans. He gives other Republicans who lean that way permission to get on board.

Whether Dr. Paul has other baggage is secondary. Future Republican politicians will come along who don't have the "nutty" baggage but who do agree on peace.

For the US to change its policy of global military domination and virtually perpetual war-making and mongering, there needs to be a new bipartisan consensus. In that regard, Dr. Paul is an exciting and inspiring historical figure.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I don't look at it that way. What matters for me is that Paul is demonstrating that there is a strong and vocal peace constituency among Republicans. He gives other Republicans who lean that way permission to get on board.

I think that's part of it, but libertarianism is also a broader movement capturing younger minds. He's the number one recipient of donations from active military service members among all candidates.

I'd much rather have libertarianism subsumed under the Democrats, but it looks like the Republicans are doing a much better job of co-opting them. In twenty years, the GOP will probably be somewhere between libertarians and conservatives today.

[Wonderment]

He's the number one recipient of donations from active military service members among all candidates.

Very interesting. Do you have a source for that?

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Very interesting. Do you have a source for that?

Source. Numbers are from July 2011, so take that with a grain of salt.

Here are 2007 numbers for comparison.

[graz]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Source. Numbers are from July 2011, so take that with a grain of salt.

Here are 2007 numbers for comparison.

So what's the appeal for a military person?
Marijuana? Gay Rights?
It can't be demilitarization, that would end their careers.
His Libertarianism as social service gutting would deny them the benefits and pensions that are just about the best part of their service.
Maybe they like the idea of service more than the application? Can't say as I'd blame them.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I don't look at it that way. What matters for me is that Paul is demonstrating that there is a strong and vocal peace constituency among Republicans. He gives other Republicans who lean that way permission to get on board.

I wasn't talking about his appeal to you, FTR, but his appeal to primary voters.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

... Dr. Paul ...

Gag.

Never a good sign when they drag out the "doctor" appellation. It's an appeal to authority, and a bit manipulative.

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Paul's message is utterly heretical in both parties

No, it really isn't. It's actually pretty normal and mainstream in the Democratic Party.

Or, I should say, I guess it depends what part of his message you're talking about. If you're talking about closing all our bases and eliminating the US military, then, yes, Paul's message is utterly heretical in both parties, as well as among the US population. I doubt 5% of Americans would support Paul's full blown agenda. But if you're talking about some of the things Chomsky described as non-controversial, or the bulk of what Paul says about treason and war and the police state, those are pretty mainstream views in the Democratic Party.

It reminds me of the praise rfrobison gets for being a nice guy. People have remarked before that Rob gets all this praise not just because he's nice, but because he's a nice conservative. A polite manner and willingness to discuss issues without animus are just normal for the liberals around here, but when a conservative does it, no one can believe it and we fall all over ourselves heaping praise on him. Bob Wright even went out of his way to highlight the anomaly by naming a politeness prize in Rob's name.

But this is roughly how you treat Democrats. You claim they are their moral equivalent of Hitler, and then make a conspicuous display of showering love on Ron Paul.

I've always assumed I knew what you were doing: You figured the Republicans were the ones who needed encouraging, so you'd highlight the one guy on their side who deserved praise. I get that; it was Bob Wright's reasoning, too, in praising rfrobison. But I don't want to let your claim about about the Democrats stand without challenge.

Originally Posted by Wonderment

but it's especially cognitively dissonant to his über-exceptionalist pro-Iraq War colleagues on the debating stage. How did a guy whose foreign policy views are compatible with those of Noam Chomsky and Dennis Kucinich even get invited to the venue among Republican presidential wannabes, much less share a podium and a mic as an equal?

Good question. I suspect it's because they know he's never going to get anywhere with the radical peace agenda, but they don't mind his positions on all the other issues. He's actually to the right of everyone else on the stage when it comes to his desire to effectively outlaw representative government*, dismantle most of the state, wipe out the safety net, and eliminate the sole hedge the American people have against the untrammeled abuse of private power. Paul -- Dr. Paul -- is a radical apologist for unregulated private power. Nothing good will come of your embrace of him, but you might help him increase the reach of his Rothbardian libertarianism.

* If your libertarianism says that everything government does is illegal or un-Constitutional, that all federal agencies should be dismantled, that everything government does (save for courts, police, and the military) should be stopped , you have effectively decided that government is not a tool the public can use to shape the kind of society they want to live in.

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I also like how Chomsky references Eisenhower in the post-debate clip. It's a message to the Republican base: go back to your pre-Nixonian, pre-Reaganista roots, i.e., when you had enough cognition to experience dissonance about creeping and catastrophic militarism.

Neither Chomsky, nor you, nor anyone else is going to get through to the Republican base. They are a lost cause, and they cannot be reached. The GOP leadership has worked very hard to cultivate a pliant and malleable base that will believe whatever Rush Limbaugh tells them to believe, even if it directly contradicts what he told them to believe yesterday -- and this base refuses to believe anything else that anyone says. We've all experienced it: you can hit them with fact after fact after fact and they just shrug their shoulders. If you want to advance a peace agenda, there are large parts of the polity you have a much better chance of reaching the the rightmost 30%.

[Sulla the Dictator]

A polite manner and willingness to discuss issues without animus are just normal for the liberals around here

Umm....not for you though.

[Wonderment]

Gag. Never a good sign when they drag out the "doctor" appellation. It's an appeal to authority, and a bit manipulative.

I'm sure, in the interest of being consistent in your principles, you also gag and object vehemently every time you hear someone refer to MLK as Dr. King.

But if you're talking about some of the things Chomsky described as non-controversial, or the bulk of what Paul says about treason and war and the police state, those are pretty mainstream views in the Democratic Party.

Really? Can you name any mainstream political figures who have expressed these mainstream views, besides Dennis Kucinich? Can you name any who haven't lined up in relentless opposition to Paul and Chomsky's views on Israel? Can you name any who would agree with Paul and Chomsky that we should understand the grievances of those who advocate for the removal of US bases from their countries? Perhaps I misunderstand you: what view that Chomsky described in the clip as "uncontroversial" do mainstream Dems. accept?

But this is roughly how you treat Democrats. You claim they are their moral equivalent of Hitler, and then make a conspicuous display of showering love on Ron Paul.

I regularly vote for Democrats, including Barack Obama for whom I campaigned as well as voted. I certainly have never compared them to Hitler. Actually, in the previous post I compared Republicans to the leadership of the Confederacy in the Civil War, but you probably missed that because party loyalty clouded your judgment.

Neither Chomsky, nor you, nor anyone else is going to get through to the Republican base. They are a lost cause, and they cannot be reached.

I strongly disagree with that. There's lots of ideological rigidity in both parties, but people can change their views over time, especially young people.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I'm sure, in the interest of being consistent in your principles, you also gag and object vehemently every time you hear someone refer to MLK as Dr. King.

I will consider whether I should start demanding that you call me Dr. Ocean. Only you, Wonderment.

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I will consider whether I should start demanding that you call me Dr. Ocean. Only you, Wonderment.

A sus órdenes, Doctora.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

A sus órdenes, Doctora.

Muy bien.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I'm sure, in the interest of being consistent in your principles, you also gag and object vehemently every time you hear someone refer to MLK as Dr. King.

It actually just strikes me as odd. No one calls Gingrich "Dr. Gingrich," and being a medical doctor has nothing to do with Paul's appeal or lack thereof, politically. (The supposed allure of him having delivered babies aside.)

Plus, it reminds me of this nutty law school professor I had who used to bitch about how medical doctors were the only ones to use the title on a social basis. He'd say that if MDs in Congress were going to demand "Dr." as a title, all the JDs should, as well, which obviously would remove any specialness.

So I can't wait til it comes down to Dr. Romney and the anti-Dr. Romney, whether that be Dr. Gingrich, Dr. Paul, or Dr. Bachmann.

[Wonderment]

It actually just strikes me as odd. No one calls Gingrich "Dr. Gingrich," and being a medical doctor has nothing to do with Paul's appeal or lack thereof, politically. (The supposed allure of him having delivered babies aside.)

Plus, it reminds me of this nutty law school professor I had who used to bitch about how medical doctors were the only ones to use the title on a social basis. He'd say that if MDs in Congress were going to demand "Dr." as a title, all the JDs should, as well, which obviously would remove any specialness.

This is actually an issue in the medical profession nowadays. Many "Physician's Assistants" or "Nurse Practitioners" now have doctorates; however, by law, they are required to work under the auspices of an M.D. So when the Practitioner comes in for the consult and says, "I'm Dr. Jones," it's confusing to Patient Smith (and presumably wounds the ego of Dr. Johnson, M.D.)

I think official guidelines discourage or prohibit the Phd nurse from calling him/herself "doctor."

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I think official guidelines discourage or prohibit the Phd nurse from calling him/herself "doctor."

This irritates me. As a potential patient, I'm not so easily confused.

In any case, I see no reason to follow it in referring to politicians.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by stephanie

This irritates me. As a potential patient, I'm not so easily confused.

In any case, I see no reason to follow it in referring to politicians.

I don't know what the regulations are in California, and we don't have to get off on this tangent, but I see exactly why such regulation or custom would be put in place. It's very easy for many people to get confused about who is who in a health care environment. And a nurse is not a medical doctor. So anything that's done to avoid misunderstandings is a good idea. I've seen people very indignant, thinking that they are being deceived when someone who is not an physician calls himself or herself a doctor while they are in hospital or clinic.

[Wonderment]

Here's an article that explores the issue and legislation introduced in various states to address it:

Dr. Roland Goertz, the board chairman of the American Academy of Family Physicians, says that physicians are worried that losing control over “doctor,” a word that has defined their profession for centuries, will be followed by the loss of control over the profession itself. He said that patients could be confused about the roles of various health professionals who all call themselves doctors.

“There is real concern that the use of the word ‘doctor’ will not be clear to patients,” he said.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I don't know what the regulations are in California, and we don't have to get off on this tangent, but I see exactly why such regulation or custom would be put in place. It's very easy for many people to get confused about who is who in a health care environment. And a nurse is not a medical doctor. So anything that's done to avoid misunderstandings is a good idea. I've seen people very indignant, thinking that they are being deceived when someone who is not an physician calls himself or herself a doctor while they are in hospital or clinic.

What irritates me is this idea by medical doctors (some of whom are wonderful people, of course) that they have the sole right to a term that in fact applies to numerous others. A PhD is every bit as much a doctor as an MD. I think Wonderment's use of the term for Paul (and not others) when we aren't talking about Paul's medical expertise illustrates the oddness.

Random story: I deposed a bunch of German business executives in a case once. In Germany, as everyone probably knows, "Dr." is used much more commonly, and not just for those with medical degrees, but for those with advanced degrees in other fields. Therefore, it's common for high-level politicians and business people and even lawyers to be termed "Dr." and it seemed that most everyone we were dealing with was Doktor something or other. But during my first deposition I referred to someone (a corporate officer) as Doktor Someone and the deponent (who was a Dr. and another officer) quickly corrected me "he is not a doktor."

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by stephanie

What irritates me is this idea by medical doctors (some of whom are wonderful people, of course) that they have the sole right to a term that in fact applies to numerous others. A PhD is every bit as much a doctor as an MD.

As a clinical psychologist who used to work in a medical center, I can relate.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by stephanie

What irritates me is this idea by medical doctors (some of whom are wonderful people, of course)

Tell me about it!

... that they have the sole right to a term that in fact applies to numerous others. A PhD is every bit as much a doctor as an MD.

Yes, I know the pain. I have many friends with PhDs and this is an old joke about who the real doctor is. But the reality is that when you say you're a doctor, people immediately think you're a medical doctor. So, somehow it's a cultural phenomenon. You can't really blame physicians for that. Perhaps because physicians are a much more common staple for everybody they got to own the title in the popular mind at least.

It's like Americans owning the name, when there are other inhabitants of the Americas that aren't recognized as such. It just happens.

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by stephanie

This irritates me. As a potential patient, I'm not so easily confused.

In any case, I see no reason to follow it in referring to politicians.

I feel your pain (medical pun intended); I winced for years every time a pol used the honorific for Dr. Kissinger.

The upside is that with his accent the usage evoked both Dr. Mengele and Dr. Strangelove.

[graz]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I'm sure, in the interest of being consistent in your principles, you also gag and object vehemently every time you hear someone refer to MLK as Dr. King.

The problem with your attempt to elevate Mr/MD/Dr/Great Thinker Paul (as used by you elsewhere also) is that most everyone else sees him for the mere mortal and wacky politico that he is. Your love and affinity for his single dovetailing issue does not overrule the complete package that most everyone else recognizes. Highlighting him as a beacon for the youth and a uniter of the extremes of both parties is wishful thinking. Electoral politics requires leavening "hope" (like your sometimes man Obama -- would that be mister?) with practicality. Polishing a turd doesn't remove its stink.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I'm sure, in the interest of being consistent in your principles, you also gag and object vehemently every time you hear someone refer to MLK as Dr. King.

I guess I never thought to question the use of the honorific for MLK, since I revere him as one of the great men of history.

Said by Ron Paul:

Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.

Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

(W)e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.

---

Dang. I was going to answer the rest of this, and a couple of other posts on this topic, but there's a new Bob diavlog; going to watch that, instead, and then I'll need to go to bed.

Last thing I'll say today is I don't think you really understand who's in that 7.5% of the GOP that supports Paul. They aren't all supporting him because of his peace agenda. You should look into who his followers are. Most of them appear to be Alex Jones fans, conspiracy theorists, virulent anti-Semites, and other survivalist-type far right wackos.

Remember: Paul is the one who promoted armed, anti-government militias during the 1990s and during the early years of the Obama administration. And he's the one who calls Lincoln a tyrant and objected to the end of slavery. Paul is also the one who wanted to preserve the legal framework for Jim Crow.

You've picked a hell of a guy to valorize.

[thouartgob]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

I guess I never thought to question the use of the honorific for MLK, since I revere him as one of the great men of history.

Said by Ron Paul:

Ah this reminds me of Amy Wax's position with Glenn Loury. Blacks are either genetically inferior ( sailer/murray/the derb ) or their culture is inferior ( wax and the rest ). Thankfully for the conservative view of things, racism or racist tendencies have not been a problem in american culture for the last 30 or 40 years otherwise making such racially oriented charges might be a bit problematic

[Mr. Morden]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Really? Can you name any mainstream political figures who have expressed these mainstream views, besides Dennis Kucinich?

What, no love for this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTO5x0rlJJo

a candidate whose campaign had some of the most inspired political advertising of modern history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8

[Wonderment]

Thanks for reminding us of Mike Gravel.

Speaking of reminding, remind the current President and Nobel Peace Prize winner of his obligations under the NPT that Gravel cited.

In the debate clip, Gravel was referring to Article VI of the Treaty. No wonder no one took him seriously.

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

[Mr. Morden]

On Ron Paul and the use of "Dr. Paul", I don't think including the "Dr." would be a big deal for people who have a habit of referring to all politicians with such titles (e.g., "Mr. Bush", "Ms. Pelosi", etc.). But from Paul-ites who don't normally do that for other politicians, it tends to signify a kind of creepy reverence, as if the fact the fact that he has a medical degree is a reason for him to be awarded the presidency.

[And this is coming from someone with a PhD, even though, ironically, my username includes "Mr".]

Will Wilkinson had a good take on Paul, and how his "nationalist libertarianism" differentiates him from more conventional libertarians, here:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/400...2&out=00:38:57

and here:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/400...5&out=00:44:30

I've sometimes wondered if there is legitimately more support for Paul's eclectic brand of paleoconservative/libertarian fusionism than there is for more traditional libertarianism, or if Paul just happened to catch fire at the right time (running in 2008, when even the Mike Gravels of the world were being allowed into the debates).

If, in 2008, a Gary Johnson or a similar candidate with more libertarian positions on social issues like abortion and immigration had been running instead of Paul, would that candidate's anti-Iraq War and anti-Drug War commentary in the debates have gone viral as well? Would it have spawned the same kind of cult of personality that arose around Paul? Or were Paul's non-libertarian positions on some of the other social issues necessary for this to happen?

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Mr. Morden

Or were Paul's non-libertarian positions on some of the other social issues necessary for this to happen?

Why do you consider Paul's positions on immigration non-libertarian?It seems he's quite in line with the main stream position. And, surely all libertarians don't agree on everything. Paul's stand on abortion is based on what he sees as libertarian principles although I'm sure he's in the minority of libertarians on this one.

Furthermore, Paul argued in this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which is alive, human, and he believes possesses legal rights.[212]

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Why do you consider Paul's positions on immigration non-libertarian?

Free movement of people (potential workers and consumers) as well as goods (free trade) seem to me to be key aspects of libertarianism.

Abortion is actually an issue on which there's more room for dissent, it seems to me, depending on whether you see the embryo/fetus as a person.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Free movement of people (potential workers and consumers) as well as goods (free trade) seem to me to be key aspects of libertarianism.

Abortion is actually an issue on which there's more room for dissent, it seems to me, depending on whether you see the embryo/fetus as a person.

I think there are many libertarians who believe that nations have the right to have borders and enforce their border laws, which is Paul's view.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I think there are many libertarians who believe that nations have the right to have borders and enforce their border laws, which is Paul's view.

Whatever people who like to call themselves libertarian say, it seems inconsistent with the theory behind libertarianism in much the way trade restrictions would be. Clearly nations have a right to impose trade barriers or tariffs, that's not the issue. The question is whether they should. Libertarian theory would say no.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Whatever people who like to call themselves libertarian say, it seems inconsistent with the theory behind libertarianism in much the way trade restrictions would be. Clearly nations have a right to impose trade barriers or tariffs, that's not the issue. The question is whether they should. Libertarian theory would say no.

I guess I would need to see that written down somewhere and certainly there are many shades of libertarianism. I once had a tiny email conversation with Nick Gillespie. It was over something in Reason Magazine. I was complaining about his stance on immigration and how much it cost us in extending benefits to illegal persons (I almost wrote illegals!). He said that his program would do away with any kind of benefits so that wouldn't be an issue. I guess that might also end part of the draw.

But then of course there would be all kinds of other issues to address when hospitals would no longer be compelled to treat everyone. No simple solutions anywhere.

[Alexandrite]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I think there are many libertarians who believe that nations have the right to have borders and enforce their border laws, which is Paul's view.

It's not actually known if this is his view, or if it's a clever pandering, he's very fast on diverting the subject into conservative dog whistles. The Austrians were in favor of "Freedom of Trade of Labor across borders", that where ever there is the free trade in labor you have peace, and that labor mobility was an essential element to preventing wars.

He also is against the fence, since it will be used to keep Americans in, a rather ridiculous view on the face of it (though I did read a magazine piece on a small town in southern Texas that was having trouble due to it...).


Sometimes I think he just pretends to be a crazy old person who can't hear the question so he doesn't have to answer it.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Alexandrite

It's not actually known if this is his view, or if it's a clever pandering, he's very fast on diverting the subject into conservative dog whistles. The Austrians were in favor of "Freedom of Trade of Labor across borders", that where ever there is the free trade in labor you have peace, and that labor mobility was an essential element to preventing wars.

He also is against the fence, since it will be used to keep Americans in, a rather ridiculous view on the face of it (though I did read a magazine piece on a small town in southern Texas that was having trouble due to it...).


Sometimes I think he just pretends to be a crazy old person who can't hear the question so he doesn't have to answer it.

I got that from his campaign website but maybe Lew Rockwell wrote it.

I somehow doubt a fence is the way to do. One smart thing Perry said is that if you build a twenty ft fence, people who sell 22ft ladders will get rich. I think the best way is to punish employers but that will never happen.

Recently there was a lot of stuff about how Paul is a racist because of his old newsletter and a kook because he appears on Alex Jones. My notion is that he doesn't have a grasp of how the public perceives him. He is mostly intent on his message and everything else takes a back seat in his mind. It's kind of refreshing really and is probably part of his appeal.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Mr. Morden

On Ron Paul and the use of "Dr. Paul", I don't think including the "Dr." would be a big deal for people who have a habit of referring to all politicians with such titles (e.g., "Mr. Bush", "Ms. Pelosi", etc.). But from Paul-ites who don't normally do that for other politicians, it tends to signify a kind of creepy reverence, as if the fact the fact that he has a medical degree is a reason for him to be awarded the presidency.

Yes, this is basically how I feel. I just want consistency.

(But if we want to use titles, why not use Rep. for both Pelosi and Paul? That's the relevant one when we are talking politics. I'll call Paul Dr. Paul if I decide to see him for his medical expertise. Dr. King isn't weird, because in the African-American tradition especially, but not exclusively, it's common to refer to ministers with doctorates in theology or the like as "doctor." And King was acting in his ministerial role as a civil rights leader. Plus, in the '50s and '60s our culture was more likely to use titles in general in referring to people.)