While the mainstream narrative on MLK is grossly distorted, I think the narrative you’re boosting is a trope, and also has distortions. In the mainstream MLK is the most revered American hero, and in truth there were years in which he may have had less popular support than Donald Trump. However, he was not completely without establishment support. The entire establishment did not always cast him as a rabble-rouser and complainer. He was certainly cast as the “good” protestor in the media on several occasions.

He was routinely invited to meet with American leaders (Nixon, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ). Several of these meetings were in the White House. Foreign leaders met with him. He won the Nobel prize. He was on the cover of Time magazine twice. He was an eminent person during his life.

Here’s two newspaper snippets in contradiction with your idea that contemporaries didn’t consider his speeches rousing and elegant.

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/20989079/editorial-on-martin...

https://static01.nyt.com/packages/pdf/topics/MLK/washdream.p...

This newspaper article says “Lyndon Johnson recognized that Martin Luther King possesses a certain mysticism of a crusader who can touch the emotional well springs of people and inspire them to demonstrate in a non-violent way.”

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/53577271/article-discussing-...

His funeral was attended by at least a dozen dignitaries

https://www.britannica.com/story/attendees-of-martin-luther-...

Dr King would have, and always did use love. Not hate.

Collective action is not hate, and change doesn't require hate. Mobs today act out of anger and hate. And that creates more anger and more hate.

It's hard to love people that you perceive as evil - but wow is it ever powerful when you do. Daryl Davis is such a great example of this as another user pointed out.