Making Sense of McGee

The media and the public are trying to make sense of Michael McGee, Jr.'s stunning victory in Tuesday's recall election.

In today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Editorial Board weighs in and so does columnist Eugene Kane.

The rather condescending editorial, "A time for leadership," challenges McGee to take advantage of the "second chance" he's received from 6th District voters. The Board explains that while it supported McGee's recall, there's potential for progress in the district even with McGee retaining his post as alderman.

Cynics will say the voters got what they deserve. That's not only a cheap shot but probably inaccurate. The majority of the people who voted for McGee probably did so because they honestly felt that, despite his many personal foibles and outrageous behavior, he was not only listening to them but had their interests at heart. Especially when they felt he was challenging the establishment.

As former Ald. Fred Gordon told the Journal Sentinel's Greg Borowski, rather than hurt McGee, the recall process elevated his status in the district, particularly, we'd guess, among those who feel the most disenfranchised.

Indeed, even the candidate who finished a distant second to McGee, Una Van Duvall, whom we recommended, believed McGee "has a passion for the people." We agree, and we concede he has addressed some problems in the district. But he needs to do more.

...His district has vast potential, too - from new housing in Brewers Hill to the renaissance on King Drive to the promising new Bronzeville entertainment district.

All it needs now is leadership.

In other words, McGee isn't such a bad guy. The people can't be wrong. Now it's up to McGee to not let his constituents down.

I hope McGee makes the most of his second chance, but I doubt that will involve any changes on his part.

Why would he change? He's what the people want. That was made very clear in Tuesday's election.

Is it right for the JS Editorial Board to look the other way and gloss over McGee's "personal foibles and outrageous behavior"?

Don't standards of decency and integrity matter?

Is it acceptable for a leader to call police officers "faggots"? Is it OK for him to call the former Milwaukee D.A. a "dumb ass"? Is calling for the lynching of community leader Leon Todd just business as usual?

Apparently, none of that matters because the people have spoken and the Board doesn't want to second guess the people.

The McGee victory is also the subject of Eugene Kane's column.

It should come as no surprise that Kane plays up the racial divide in Milwaukee. There's always a racial divide in Kane's world.

He writes:

If anyone needed proof there are two sides to the city of Milwaukee, look no further than Mike McGee's election night victory.

...In the spirit of the college hoops playoffs, what McGee achieved can officially be described as a blowout.

That's impressive considering all the condemnation of McGee from various sectors, including what seemed like the entire mainstream media - including this newspaper - and most major broadcast stations in town.

...For months, the often troubled tableau of McGee's personal life was detailed in the newspaper along with assorted skirmishes and court battles with opponents. Given the amount of negative publicity, it seemed unlikely McGee could survive the onslaught of a field of opponents who popped up almost immediately to challenge his incumbency.

But again, there were two sides to consider. One side of the city wasn't prepared to let the other dictate what kind of person should lead them. In my opinion, McGee didn't win as much as his opponents lost this one.

So, if you read the Journal Sentinel's editorials or listened to the screaming heads on WTMJ-AM radio or WISN-AM, you probably expected McGee to go down in flames. But if you listened to the black press and radio stations such as WNOV-AM or WMCS-AM, it's been clear for some time that many central city residents were dead set against McGee being recalled from office simply because the powers-that-be in town were fed up with his act.

Kane doesn't think much of the central city residents.

He's saying that they voted for McGee out of spite. They were automatically against the recall because the "powers-that-be" were sick of McGee. Is "powers-that-be" code for white people? Conservatives?

I'm not really sure, but I'm sure it doesn't refer to people with Kane's racially segregated mindset.

...The people scratching their heads over McGee's victory tended to underestimate his political skills, particularly in terms of galvanizing his base.... Although he's widely perceived as a loose cannon, many central city voters prefer having a hell-raiser in City Hall to the current crop of somnambulant incumbents who never seem to get all that ex[c]ited about anything.

Kane doesn't mention how he galvanizes his base.

McGee does so precisely by playing up the very divide that fuels so many of Kane's columns.

McGee has to be divisive to galvanize.

Kane's argument that a "hell-raiser" is the sort of leader that appeals to central city voters could be seen as a bit of an insult to them. A leader in the habit of using gay and racial slurs and threatening violence isn't a good sort of "hell-raiser."

Kane does go on to suggest that McGee often is a poor role model, sending his constituents the wrong message.

I'd give Kane points for that if he didn't say in his next paragraph that McGee's bad behavior is what gives him "credibility other politicians don't have."

Although Kane urges McGee to be more mature in the future, it's a very soft request.

Kane ends his column wishing that McGee could stay out of the spotlight for a while and quietly work to serve his constituents. However, he doubts that will happen.

I don't think that will happen either. And why should it?

McGee received a mandate to be the "hell-raiser" that his constituents admire, not to transform himself.

Why pretend that McGee's success in the recall may cause him to grow up a bit and act responsibly?

That's not what the people of his district want.

If they wanted those characteristics in their alderman, they would not have given McGee 64% of the vote.