Update 2: Mike McGee

Another update I wanted to make concerns the incarcerated alderman from the district next door. I've recently seen this, this, and this. The first is a pretty good article in our alternative weekly. The last two are op-eds in the mainstream daily...

Let's address the second first. It's from Gary Krager, a Wind Lake real estate appraiser and community columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, entitled, "Some brotherly advice for Milwaukee's inner city residents." The first line is, "Let me lay it out there. Here's what black people should do. Reject Milwaukee Ald. Mike McGee Jr." Can you count the problems here?

Krager is white. He does indeed end his piece by addressing the reader as "my brother." This is in itself , let's just say, a bit presumptuous. I don't ususally address blacks as brother or sister until they've addressed me that way. (Usually brother, when it happens.)

It's also obviously condescending to offer unsolicited advice, but that might be forgiven if the advice is thoughtful and draws on some basis other than "white knows best." Krager writes, "since I'll be told I don't know what it's like to be black, I guess I get to be an expert on white people." He doesn't give any credentials there.

And I know Milwaukee is hypersegregated, but the piece appears to be premised on all inner city residents being black and all blacks living in the inner city.

Maybe Krager is an expert on the view from Wind Lake. The only other time I've ever heard of Wind Lake was in reading another community columnist, this one blaming homeowners for being victims of predatory lenders. (In a way, my response to that included the idea that real estate appraisers like Krager were collective experts in having their heads up their asses.) The Journal seems to like white people from Wind Lake. I looked it up on City-Data.com. The median home price is twice that of Milwaukee, but that's reasonable since the median income is also twice that of Milwaukee. The population of 5202 is 97.1% white. Of the remaining 150 or so others, are 86 Hispanics, 32 mixed, 26 native americans and a total of 6 divided between blacks, asians, and rounding error. It's not even in Milwaukee County.

Since I'm a lawyer, let me mention the argument Krager makes regarding the standard of proof:

I don't want to hear "innocent until proven guilty," either. That's the standard for criminal court - and for good reason. It's not the standard anyone uses in his or her own life. Your kid's baseball comes through the window, and he's outside with a bat; I don't think you're going to Mirandize him. He lies about it, and it's going to be worse. Read the criminal complaints against McGee. He's holding a Louisville Slugger.

I think Krager may just be stupid. The presumption of innocence is normal in everyday life. I'm right now in a room full of people. Any one of them could be guilty of any thing. What should I presume: innocent or guilty? When should I shift my presumption? When someone makes an accusation? That does not work. It doesn't work in real life and it doesn't work in the criminal law. I've heard far too much bullshit in court. But Krager does not really believe in the principle of presuming guilt either:

People will say I'm excusing racism. Nonsense. Of that I should be innocent until proved guilty. Racism is stupid. Why does anyone care what someone's skin color is? I want all honest, hard-working people to thrive.

So exactly why is McGee presumed guilty and you are presumed innocent? If anything, the law if the opposite. Since racism is inherently hard to prove, the standards of proof are usually less strict. Since it is embarassing but not a crime, and because the accuser lacks the resources of the state, there is less reason not to presume it. Particularly when you're a white guy from Wind Lake making condescending and presumptuous remarks to blacks whom you've stereotyped.

Let me jump to one of the other articles, where a candidate for McGee's seat says the same thing:

Even Jordan says that the case has dragged on too long, and she believes that McGee should have been kicked out of office after charges were brought so that the district could have a voice on the Common Council. She called it “taxation without representation,” and dismissed the argument that McGee is innocent until proven guilty. “I don’t understand how they sit there and let it go on like this,” Jordan said. “This is a mockery of democracy. This man is in jail. Why did the Common Council not get rid of him?”

I guess that is not surprising. Here's a reduced excerpt of the rest of Krager:

Do not care only about McGee and not his alleged victims. Do not take an "us vs. them" posture... If you want McGee to represent you, of course that's your business. The problem is that it says something to the larger community about your district. If you think that something is that you stand up for a man being persecuted, think again. To many, it says his behavior is acceptable.... That scares a lot of white people.... Many of them avoid the inner city and believe they can live a fine life doing so. The residents of the inner city are the only ones who can make the draws there outweigh the real or perceived dangers...We can pass all the laws against discrimination that we want. We even can enforce them effectively...What we can't do is make people go where they are afraid to go.... Fear will win out. Just try telling someone who's claustrophobic that he or she shouldn't be. If an area excuses and accepts crime, companies won't want to operate there. Rejecting McGee would be a baby step toward setting the bar higher for what's acceptable behavior in his district, which is the only way to attract people to it.

So the argument, in reduced form is:

You need white people to come rescue your area with investment. They want to come and help exploit the area, but they hear you blacks defending McGee and say, "oh, no, those black people have no values. They defend McGee that means they like crime, and if I go there they will come and kill me or rape me." Hence blacks must do whatever they can to sacrifice any black person accused by white people of any crime, so that whites will come to see them as having the same values as we have in Wind Lake, and then we will come and open up restaurants on cheap properties in your area, hire you for slave wages, take all your money, and eventually drive you out, which is what you need and we know best because we're white and you're just dumb n....s and by the way, I'm not racist, because racism is stupid. I just happen to think most of you are lazy and stupid.

Do I need to refute all this? Well, lets look at that last link. It's a response to Krager, and points out that most residents in the area have reasons not to be so flippant about due process, that the area is diverse, that black investment in the area would be at least as good as white investment, and that he is not sincerely seeking to help.

That's where my perspective differs. I'm a white guy and drawing on my expertise, let me tell my black friends that a lot of white people are more stupid than you seem to believe. Of course, Krager could be writing out of hate, but I presume it's just the stupid doing the talking. Because I understand the power of Stupid, I would have concentrated more on the other big defect of Krager's argument: If white people are fearful because they are stupid, the solution is not to appease their stupidity. If they fear something because of a wrong belief, why not just correct that belief? How would you react if your child developed a fear based on a false belief?

I think there's a proper role for racial mediators. Enlightened whites can legitmately lecture receptive blacks, and vice versa, under appropriate circumstances. Krager would find his black audience more receptive if (1) he had anything useful to say, (2) he did not come off as ignorant and racist, (3) he had at least acknowledged that the whites who held these stupid fears were wrong, and (4) he had directed most of his lecture to the white people who are being stupid, rather than black people whose positions he does not even claim to understand.

I hope to more thoroughly address the first link later.