Apologist for a Hot-head

In his column "McGee is controversial, and here's why he's necessary," Eugene Kane writes about the two Michael McGees.

He prefers one McGee more than the other, but Kane acts as an apologist for both.

Surprise, surprise.

It's no surprise to me there are two Mike McGees.

I've known that for a while.

One of them is the McGee guy in the headlines the past few weeks for everything from a scandalous hearing about his personal life and an arrest that landed him in jail overnight to a surprising petition for a name change.

The other McGee I know has been one of the most impressive - and controversial - young African-American politicians I've covered in the past 20 years. Between the two, I like the latter McGee much better.

Kane then goes on to list what he considers to be McGee's commendable "achievements" as a public servant, even though most of the McGee proposals that Kane cites never were enacted.

Kane blames the unreasonable Common Council for standing in McGee's way rather than admitting that his proposals were misguided.

...As I have followed McGee's career in City Hall since he roundly defeated veteran Ald. Marlene Johnson-Odom in 2004, he has evolved into the rare politician who regularly attempts to bring his vision of grass-roots politics to the mainstream.

He does it in the typical McGee fashion: in your face and without giving a hoot what his detractors think

While I think it's admirable to be guided by higher principles rather than acting solely to win the approval of others, that's not McGee's style.

Kane considers McGee's in your face approach to be courageous. It's not. It's childish and ineffective.

...The younger McGee was the driving force behind a historic Milwaukee slavery ordinance that requires any company that does business with the city to disclose ties to slavery under penalty of losing its contract.

For some, it was nothing but a symbolic move. But for socially conscious African-Americans, it was a triumph in terms of bringing a specific black issue to public policy.

There are thousands of black nationalists across the country pushing various slave reparations bills in their respective communities. McGee got it done during his first term in office.

Wow! How great for the city of Milwaukee residents!

Thanks to McGee, the city won't do business with companies that had ties to slavery.

So what? For the most part, the issue is moot. How many companies are 140 years old?

That's why I can't offer much satisfaction for white readers who flooded my mailbox during a recent vacation demanding: "You have to say something about Mike McGee!"

What they meant was, of course, something negative.

When readers write to Kane, do they all inform him of their racial background?

How does he know that his mailbox is flooded with demands from "white readers"?

Some readers may specify their race when they write to Kane, but it seems that he may be making assumptions here. He assumes that he knows the color of the readers' skin and that he knows they want him to speak negatively about McGee.

I'm sure some may be daring Kane to be critical of McGee, but he can't conclude that the flood in his mailbox is from white people anxious to read an anti-McGee rant.

With his recent admission of an extramarital affair and sincere-sounding apology to his constituents, I think it's time to put his recent transgressions in context.

Despite the overheated rhetoric from media pundits who view McGee as some dangerous virus that needs to be excised from the body politic, I prefer to consider him a young, hot-headed black politician still finding his way.

McGee is "still finding his way"?

What kind of excuse is that?

A very lame one.

This "young, hot-headed" guy is thirty-six!

We're not talking about a kid just out of high school or even college.

He's a grown man who's seriously responsibility-challenged. I don't buy the "finding his way" stuff.

Is McGee a kid or a man? Is he fit to be a community leader?

I don't think someone so unsure of his principles is qualified to be a leader. I don't know if such an individual is even capable of being a very good follower.


Kane makes McGee sound like he should be backpacking around Europe, in search of himself, rather than sitting on the Common Council.

...The reason McGee - with all his flaws - is necessary in this city is that he is the embodiment of representative government. He stands for a group of angry young black people everybody else ignores. These are young African-Americans who have chosen to participate in the system partly because of his presence.

I don't understand this reasoning.

McGee is a disgrace. Nonetheless, Kane approves of him because he's the voice of the angry young black contingent.

Here's an idea. Find an individual committed to the needs of angry young black people who doesn't lie under oath.

Much of the front-page news about McGee in the past few weeks would be minor league stuff if he weren't an alderman named Mike McGee or Michael Imanu Jackson.

The more some voices denounce him, the more his support grows. In fact, I know some blacks who love McGee simply for the way he gets white folks so riled up.

That doesn't say much for those blacks, does it?

What sort of person supports a politician simply because he gets "white folks so riled up"?

I don't think Kane should be flaunting the fact that he knows blacks that are so petty. Instead, he should be embarrassed for them.

Kane's assessment of McGee and his behavior proves his willingness to excuse the inexcusable and his capacity to justify the unjustifiable.

Kane tries to make the case that McGee is passionate. What Kane fails to see is that passion doesn't necessarily demand recklessness and irresponsibility.

That said, I'll excuse Kane for writing such a poor column. It appears that he's angry and still finding his way.
________________________________

Also on the McGee front, the JS editorial board is troubled by McGee's behavior.

In "Lying is not a trifling matter," the board argues that McGee shouldn't get a pass for lying under oath about an affair. While McGee's many problems are worth noting, it's the lying in court that really gives the board pause.

But did McGee lie under oath? The district attorney's office said it will reach a decision on how to proceed in June. Because McGee is no longer believable, we expect the DA or the courts to set the record straight. Why? McGee is a public servant. This is serious stuff.

Lying under oath has suddently become serious.

I thought lying under oath about personal matters, such as an affair, was acceptable. Maybe it's not "acceptable," but it's understandable and certainly forgivable.

Didn't we learn anything from the Clinton-Lewinsky pairing?