If you spend any time on social media during an election cycle, you’ve seen the clip. It’s grainy, black-and-white, and features a sharp-jawed man in horn-rimmed glasses delivering a verbal lashing that feels like it was recorded yesterday. Malcolm X didn't mince words. He didn't do "polite discourse" when he felt he was being played.
Specifically, his take on white liberals remains one of the most polarizing and frequently shared pieces of 1960s political commentary. Why? Because he wasn't just attacking his enemies. He was attacking his supposed friends.
Honestly, the way people talk about Malcolm X today often ignores the raw, uncomfortable nature of his critique. He wasn't just calling for equality; he was calling out what he saw as a massive, deceptive "con game."
The Fox and the Wolf: A Lesson in Political Animal Spirits
Malcolm X famously used a metaphor that has stuck in the American psyche for over sixty years. He compared white conservatives to wolves and white liberals to foxes.
The wolf, he argued, was easy to spot. You see a wolf, you see teeth, you know you’re in trouble. The conservative of the 1960s—the "Dixiecrat" or the overt segregationist—didn't hide his disdain. He was the "snarling" wolf.
But the fox? That’s where things got complicated for Malcolm.
In a 1963 speech at UC Berkeley, he laid it out: "The white liberal is the worst enemy to America, and the worst enemy to the Black man." He argued that while the wolf tells you exactly where you stand, the fox "shows his teeth to the Negro but pretend that he's smiling."
💡 You might also like: Why a Man Hits Girl for Bullying Incidents Go Viral and What They Reveal About Our Breaking Point
It’s a brutal assessment.
He believed the liberal used "integration for infiltration." Basically, by joining the movement, he argued they were actually strangling its militant potential. They wanted progress, sure, but only at a pace and in a way that didn't actually threaten the underlying power structure.
Why Malcolm X and White Liberals Clashed Over Strategy
To understand this beef, you have to look at the 1964 election. It was a massive turning point. You had Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) up against Barry Goldwater.
Goldwater was the wolf. LBJ was the fox.
Malcolm X watched as Black voters were urged to support the Democratic party. He saw it as a "wasted vote." In his "Ballot or the Bullet" speech, he pointed out that even with a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate, the Democrats were still filibustering civil rights legislation.
He didn't see it as a lack of power. He saw it as a lack of will.
📖 Related: Why are US flags at half staff today and who actually makes that call?
"They get all the Negro vote, and after they get it, the Negro gets nothing in return," he shouted to the crowd. He felt that white liberals were using Black people as "political footballs" in a game they had no intention of letting them win.
This wasn't just about voting, though. It was about the very nature of help.
The Welfare Trap and the "Do-Gooder"
Malcolm had a specific gripe with Northern liberals. He’d look at the slums in Harlem or Chicago—places where there were no Jim Crow signs—and see the same poverty. He pointed out that the landlords of these "rat-filled" tenements were often the same liberals who marched for rights in the South.
- They supported freedom in Alabama.
- They collected predatory rent in New York.
- They advocated for integration elsewhere.
- They maintained "de facto" segregation in their own neighborhoods.
He felt that the "welfare agent" had replaced the father figure in Black homes, creating a cycle of dependency that he blamed squarely on liberal social engineering. To Malcolm, this wasn't charity; it was control.
Did His View Ever Change?
There’s a lot of debate about whether Malcolm "softened" after his 1964 pilgrimage to Mecca and his split from the Nation of Islam. He did start to acknowledge that "some white people are truly sincere." He even met with white revolutionaries in Africa and Europe who he felt were legitimate allies.
But—and this is a big but—he never retracted his core critique of the American political system.
👉 See also: Elecciones en Honduras 2025: ¿Quién va ganando realmente según los últimos datos?
In his final year, 1965, he was still talking about the "international power structure." He saw the struggle of Black Americans as part of a global "dark majority" rising against Western imperialism. Even as his religious views became more inclusive, his political analysis remained suspicious of anyone who wanted to "lead" the movement from the outside.
He basically told white allies: "If you want to help, work in your own community." He didn't want them in his meetings. He wanted them fixing the "white problem" that created the need for his meetings in the first place.
Why This Matters in 2026
We're still dealing with the same "fox and wolf" dynamics. When a corporation puts up a black square on Instagram but has zero Black board members, that’s the fox. When a politician makes big promises in October and disappears in January, that’s the fox.
Malcolm X’s critique is a warning against performative activism. It forces people to ask: Is this for me, or is this for you to feel like a "good person"?
Actionable Insights from Malcolm’s Critique
If you're looking to apply this history to modern life, here are a few things to consider:
- Watch the Pace: Malcolm argued that "the fox" wants to move slowly so nothing actually changes. If someone is telling you to "wait for the right time" for justice, they might be the person he was talking about.
- Look at the Local: It's easy to protest something 1,000 miles away. It's much harder to address the inequality in your own zip code, your own school district, or your own office.
- Audit the Intent: Real allyship, according to Malcolm’s later logic, involves giving up power, not just "helping" from a position of authority.
- Value Honesty Over Politeness: He preferred the wolf because he knew where he stood. In any negotiation—business, personal, or political—transparency is more valuable than a "smiling" teeth-baring fox.
Malcolm X didn't leave us with a comfortable roadmap. He left us with a mirror. Whether you're a politician, an activist, or just someone trying to understand history, his words on white liberals serve as a permanent check against complacency and hypocrisy.
To truly understand this period of history, your next step should be to read the "Ballot or the Bullet" speech in its entirety. It’s not just a history lesson; it’s a masterclass in political leverage and the dangers of unconditional loyalty to any political party. Pay close attention to his section on "political maturity"—it’s the part most people skip over in the soundbites.