Not the way I'm going to use it, though. When you read that name in this space, it will stand for Most Recent Former Governor of Wisconsin. We all know who that is.
Which is the point. I attended the speechifying at the Democratic Party of Wisconsin's convention Saturday. Mr. F. Gow's actual name was used by nearly every speaker holding public office, which were, gratefully, quite a few more than there had been not very long ago.
Except: Mr. F. Gow's name kept showing up like that itch on your ankle caused by a mosquito bite; you know you shouldn't scratch it, but you can't help it. In this present atmosphere of having-just-won-big, Democratic speakers are feeling free to utilize Mr. F. Gow to get cheap huzzahs and token solidarity.
But we are looking at some seven months, now, since Mr. F. Gow was defeated, and barely, by Tony Evers, and not clinched until between midnight and dawn the next day. Not exactly a landslide, though Evers and Lieutenant Governor Mandela Barnes don't shy from admitting that. And due to very effective and continuous gerrymandering, Republicans still have a strangehold over the state legislature which, not unexpectedly, has led to a building showdown between them and a new Democratic governor who's turned the tables on them, since his gubernatorial veto power, one of the most significant within the fifty states, was created for a Republican governor by a Republican legislature, even before Mr. F. Gow was much more than a backbencher in Madison.
It just seems that, with the legislative battles building with major intensity, to continually mention Mr. F. Gow's very name, even to disparage him, evokes too great a reminder to the awful era that he commandeered. It also makes it nearly impossible to forget about him--which is what taking over the reins of power should cause. You can't get beyond someone if someone else continues to make you think of them. It makes them the major issue, not what they've ruined.
It also creates a brand, even though that's the last thing you need. Like it or not, Hitler is a brand. It stands for true and indelible evil. Its use in comparative discussions is nearly verboten (pardon the German), and often results in accusations of overreactions by the very people who ought to be thinking very carefully about that very comparison. Ironically, it brings all those discussions up short and helps legitimize Hitleresque actions and language that leave the decent rest of us thoroughly disgusted. As often the result, the damage caused can't be sufficiently minimized by well-deserved pushback.
But it's a real name of a real person. Mention it and your mind gets his picture. I don't want that for Mr. F. Gow. I want people to work at visualizing his endless smile and smarmy manner. Then they'll most likely put it into the context in which it's deserved--that is, of someone who's just not around anymore. Comebacks notwithstanding, of course, and I'm quite sure he's plotting one this very minute. But why should we feed it?
There is research for this. George Lakoff is an excellent spokesperson for the concept of political labeling (though it also works in other aspects of communication). He wrote a brief but very meaningful book entitled Don't Think of An Elephant! which speaks for itself. After all, if I tell you not to think of an elephant, that's very likely the first thing you'll do.
In other words: The key to get someone to remember something or someone is to continue mentioning it regardless of the context. When you mention something or someone, you reinforce the images that that thing or person has already made on you. That's why 45 thrives in this ultimate environment; he doesn't even need the tweeting he does to fix himself in everybody's heads, but he keeps doing so to keep his support reinforced. It doesn't matter, to them, if he's wrong or if he's lying. They see him and that's what makes them happy.
You can trash this all you want, and you'd have plenty of empathy, including mine. But every vote from them equals one of yours. And those people, who spent decades not showing up, now are and will come November 2020. That's why I don't mention his name in print: It evokes a brand. I won't participate in extending it.
The only way to combat all this attention toward someone you can't stand is to avoid mentioning them by name. I've come up with some acronyms; you can either do the same or create another we-know-who-that-is reference, like "our ex-governor," or "Dr. Pothole," or something else. Just stop saying his name. What he did to our state was bad enough. Why keep dwelling on him--and it?
The way to move forward is to think in forward terms. That means to learn from mistakes, but stop putting them and keeping them in the front of your minds.
Allow me to suggest what we should be considering, all of which would serve to improve the state's economic health while being cost-effective:
- The end of Act 10 and a renewal of simple respect for our public employees so that they avoid burnout and walk the extra mile for us (which, having been one, I know they'll do);
- Medicaid expansion to provide for those in our state with inadequate health care, so that they can work longer and more productively;
- The stifling of the phony charter school movement and a renewal of simple respect for public education; and
- Infrastructure renewal with a serious consideration of public transportation, including high-speed trains to connect, at the very least, Milwaukee and Madison with Chicago and Minneapolis.
We don't need Mr. F. Gow's name as a moniker for bad government--first of all, because nearly half the state's voters wouldn't agree, regardless of how misguided they've been; and second, because the more it's used, the faster it will be on the lips of discussions about political futures, which people like me don't want him to have. Things were bad enough to begin with, and his successors, who seem to be the likes of Robin Vos and Scott Fitzgerald, will reinforce the magnitude of his mistakes until Evers' veto pen runs dry (which it very well might, considering his opponents' self-righteousness), thank you very much.
Besides, Mr. F. Gow had already performed the disingenuous act of removing his name from a place where it might have been seen by millions, in a gesture of faux modesty that caused intestinal queasiness on the part of this citizen, at least. Those of you who do interstate automobile travel have probably noticed that, as you cross the next state's border, there's a nicely created, great big welcome sign. And, somewhere along the edges of it, there's the name of the governor.
But not in Wisconsin, at least not between 2011 and 2019. In the place where Mr. F. Gow's name should have been, there was the phrase "Open for Business." (As if it wasn't beforehand, a piece of understated pretentiousness that Mr. F. Gow became well known for.) So in case Mr. F. Gow becomes a bit piqued by the exclusion of the mentioning of his actual name, your response might well be, "Well, you had a chance to display it to everyone crossing the state line, but I guess you didn't think that was important enough."
I never did. But then, I was once someone of the loyal opposition. This is a commentary coming from Wisconsin, where the wood-hewn welcome sign now says: Tony Evers, Governor.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment