A group of Wisconsin state legislators are trying to remove art they find offensive from the State Capitol. These legislators are not conservative Republicans, as some might expect, but liberal Democrats.
The Democratic lawmakers in question want to take down a portrait of former Wisconsin Gov. Jeremiah Rusk, who violently suppressed a labor uprising in 1886. Under Rusk’s direction, the Wisconsin National Guard shot and killed five people who were protesting for the eight-hour workday. Given the combination of
Gov. Scott Walker’s budget bill that spurred protests and Rusk’s
brutality in quashing protests, the Democratic assemblymen’s effort seems congruous and justified.
However, Republicans consider Democrats’ concern over the portrait frivolous. Yet if one reads philosopher Alan de Botton’s “The Architecture of Happiness,” Democrats’ preoccupation with the portrait appears pertinent. De Botton states, “Behind wanting to own [a] painting and hang it where we could regularly study it might be the hope that through continued exposure to it, its qualities would come to assume a greater hold on us.” Simply put, art is not just something interesting to look at; it is something that influences one’s emotions and actions.
Assembly Democrats may have a point if they think “exposure” to the former anti-labor governor’s portrait is bringing out the latent union buster in the
current governor. If that is the case, the portrait should be taken down immediately.
Still, the Democratic lawmakers working to remove the painting, namely Rep. Jon Richards, D-Milwaukee, seem to be employing a double standard, considering those lawmakers probably cringe whenever a Republican tries to curtail artistic expression. For example, Democrats were enraged when former New York Mayor and Republican Rudy Giuliani threatened to cut off funding to a Brooklyn art museum unless it removed a controversial painting.
However, Rusk’s portrait is not in an art museum, where one should view controversial art. It is in the state Capitol, where the values of Wisconsinites should be reflected. Hopefully, Wisconsinites do not value the violent suppression of protestors. While other actions and accomplishments marked Rusk’s time as governor, the killing of those five people was an egregious act. Due to those killings, Rusk should not receive the same honor that esteemed Wisconsin politicians, like Robert La Follette, receive by being immortalized in the Capitol.
Also, lest one think that removing Rusk from the Capitol is an attempt to sanitize history, Richards proposed simply moving the portrait to the State Historical Society. This move would allow Rusk to be viewed in the context of history, instead of being viewed in a place of admiration. Maybe a memorial to the five Wisconsinites killed by the National Guard should replace Rusk’s portrait in the state capitol.
Perhaps the best reason for taking down the portrait is the clear message it would send to Walker: Even if you manage to escape expulsion from the Capitol in your lifetime, you will not escape it posthumously.
Jeff Schultz ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history.