The cult of personality

Our coverage of the closing of Harvey Milk’s American Diner highlights one of the problems within the San Diego LGBT community. The whole concept of Harvey Milk’s American Diner is a case study in what happens when a “cult of personality” arises.

A cult of personality happens when an individual, or individuals, use the mass media to create an idealized public image that generates unquestioned flattery and praise. Those involved in Harvey Milk’s American Diner thought that the strength of their personalities within the community would lead to a successful restaurant. It all began with the name.

Anyone who pretends that the use of Harvey Milk’s name was not a strategy to generate good will for a restaurant that had not sold its first meal is misguided. The diner was not going to make its name by providing great food and service; it was going to get people to come in based upon their love and worship of Harvey Milk.

Nicole Murray Ramirez championed the concept to Stuart Milk who acquiesced and allowed his uncle’s name to grace the diner. Nicole said he knew the San Diego community and the great volunteerism of Big Mike Phillips and Frank Lechner. Stuart was assured that the strength of the personalities of the people involved would lead to success.

Nicole advocates the diner to the political powers within the community, the Milk family and Foundation supports the concept, add LGBT community volunteer pillars Phillips and Lechner, a perfect recipe for success, right? Right.

If restaurants could succeed on the cult of personality alone, then why have so many establishments of rock stars, athletes and celebrity chefs closed? A name or well known personality does not guarantee success; just ask Gordon Ramsay of Kitchen Nightmares fame, Bobby Flay of the Food Network, basketball legend Michael Jordan or Oprah. If the cult of personality around these celebrities could not keep their restaurants open, how were Milk, Ramirez, Phillips and Lechner going to do it? They didn’t.

Who gets the blame? It seems to be Tom Brown who has been thrown under a caravan of buses. Ramirez was unequivocal in the fact that the failure was all Brown’s fault because he was reputedly responsible for the food and kitchen management. Is that a fair assessment and apportionment of the blame? I hardly think so. Ramirez told LGBT Weekly that he ate more than 60 meals there; I guess the food was not that bad then. Phillips and Lechner did not have the option of choosing another chef and kitchen manager? When Brown was missing in action due to health issues, Phillips and Lechner were responsible for the entire operation but had nothing to do with the food and kitchen management?

Some came to the defense of Phillips and Lechner by saying the two had no restaurant experience. Then why were they involved in opening a restaurant? Oh that’s right; their job was to draw people in based upon their reputation in the community. Let someone else take care of operations, food quality and service.

One of the issues around a cult of personality is when something does not go well; the first order of business is to deflect responsibility away from the individuals who have built the cult. Nicole just helped with marketing of the diner and made the introduction to Stuart Milk. He had nothing to do with the diner itself. The Foundation was just a beneficiary; the organization had nothing to do with the licensing of the name. Phillips and Lechner were the community faces of the business, but were not responsible for the restaurant’s success or failure. Tom Brown was ill most of the time so he wasn’t fully available to run the kitchen. Stuart licensed the name based upon the advice of a host of advisors, he was following good counsel.

Who is responsible for the issues facing the non-paid employees? Where is the compassion for those former employees who were waiting for money to pay their rent? If the Foundation considered pulling the plug on the restaurant as recommended by Ramirez and the Foundation attorney, why couldn’t the employees have been given more than an hour’s notice of the closing? Why did the payroll checks bounce? Is Harvey Milk’s paying the returned check fees for each employee? Why did it take Channel 10 exposing the bounced check issue before it was resolved with employees? Pillars of a community would not let these things happen or at least would be honest and open with their staff. You can just chalk it up to a lack of business management experience.

Some have complained that the media has singled out Harvey Milk’s American Diner for heightened attention. Well if it was the first Martin Luther King or Cesar Chavez restaurant that closed, it would receive the same scrutiny. There was no complaining about media attention when it was to promote the opening of the restaurant. It’s only fair that the closing gets the same attention as the opening. You live by the sword, you die by the sword.

In the end, one would think none of the personalities involved was really responsible for the closing of Harvey Milk’s American Diner. There is always you. You did not like the food or service; you should have patronized the diner anyway. After all, it was named after Harvey Milk, Nicole Murray Ramirez was solidly behind the restaurant and it was “owned” by community pillars Big Mike Phillips and Frank Lechner. What’s wrong with you? You should show up and spend your money to support these personalities for all they have done for the community. Shut up and eat.

The “cult of personality”? When will we ever learn? I rest my case.

STAMPP CORBIN

PUBLISHER

San Diego LGBT Weekly

LGBTweekly.com

3 thoughts on “The cult of personality

  1. This article is well written and empathizes that success or failure is tied to the quality of the product being offered to the public. Most people I know unselfishly support LBGT community organizations and activities in diffrent ways, however the support there is an underlying expectation of something, either a quality product, a tax write-off for charitable donation, etc. In this case it seems what people wanted most was reasonable food for a reasonable cost… wait that gets us right back to a quality product and great service. Yes I think that sums it up well; at the end of the day it comes back to these two critical ingredients regardless of the good intentions, success is dependent on the quality of the product and management.

  2. The LGBT community in general, and San Diego in particular, seems to be fixated with worshipping these self anointed “Community Pillars” and personalities.
    Where and when were these “Pillars” chosen for these roles, and by who besides their own ego driven, and yes at times well intentioned efforts?
    How does an emotionally promoted vigil for Matthew Shepard get hijacked by the egos of it’s organizers, and then get maneuvered into an opportunity to promote liquor sales and therefore enriching the pockets of a few all in Shepard’s name?
    Sound familiar with this scam using Milk’s name?
    Oh thats right, they give a token amount of their profits to this or that cause, so therefore they are once again crowned as “Pillars” of “our” community for their charitable efforts. Baloney!
    I’ve been out for over 40 years and have never understand how I get lumped under the Rainbow with a foul mouthed, ill-mannered and tacky Drag Queen like Murray as a spokesperson for my lifestyle and community. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    Yes, years ago if it weren’t for a handful of loudmouthed Drag Queens the Stonewall Riots might never have happened, but 60 years later those still alive and demanding attention, don’t have much relevance in today’s climate towards the LGBT community, and if anything have set our community back in the public’s eyes with actions like this whole Harvey Milk Diner fiasco.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *