>For all that she speaks in a reasonable and measured way, she endorses bad faith tactics. She straight up admits this - Malcolm X was good because he made MLK seem reasonable in comparison. Seeing nothing wrong with this kind of mercenary realpolitik is not conductive to getting anyone to ally with you.

That was the biggest problem I had with her analysis. In his last book before he died Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? MLK specifically said he agrees with the principles of the Black Power movement, he had no problem with their message and privately endorsed it. He understood why it was needed and agreed with it's message.

He was an extremely astute political strategist though and understood political capital and how to gain and utilize it. His problem with the Black Power movement was that it induced white backlash, something he was worried about before the Black Power movement. White middle class support for his causes was absolutely critical to their success, the Black Power movement didn't scare white middle class people to flock to MLK as she posits, it induced them to flee the progressive position altogether. The choices weren't MLK or Malcolm X back then, there was a plethora of conservative and moderate positions that the white middle class could be scared off to. The idea that Black Power bolstered MLKs popularity is just false.