Morning Fog

Monumental Excess - About Ike, And What's Not To Like

Who knew anybody was planning a monument to Dwight David Eisenhower in Washington DC?  Apparently Congress knew, having set up a commission for the purpose back in 1999.   And now, finally, a possible design for the monument, by Frank Gehry, is getting its first exposure to the public.

As always, there are those who think the new design proposal is marvelous, and others who think it misses the mark.   I'm in between.  I like the novel aspects of the architecture itself; and I favor innovative designs over the mundane.   The mundane is well represented by the World War II memorial, which Stalin would have loved; and the new Martin Luther King Memorial, which Mao Tse-Dung would have loved.  

On the other hand, I agree with Roger Lewis that a memorial focusing on Eisenhower's boyhood does not make a lot of sense.  Also I can tell you that a theme of trees just doesn't fit -- I've been to Abilene and trees are not typical of the landscape.  Oh, and is that a grain silo I see in the design?  Interesting, but it may look a bit out of place in Washington.  Architecturally, I fear for Gehry's design because imaginative public art has a way of being ground into kitsch by Congress.  Witness, for example, the ridiculous addition of the very traditional statues of soldiers to the clean, modern line of the original design of the Vietnam War memorial, or consider the aforementioned WWII and MLK efforts. 

Time will tell how the design will turn out.  It may be a quite different one.

Meantime, the stealth commission having beavered away for more than ten years now, it's probably too late for me to ask my questions:   Do we really have to have a colossal monument to every President somewhere along the Mall, and where does it all stop?  How great is great enough to merit a monument?  Is there a Chester A. Arthur commission yet?

Somewhere, it's written that a person must have "lasting historical significance" to be honored by a major monument (think of the "major award" in A Christmas Story and you'll get the picture that pops into my head when I say that).  I wouldn't deny that Eisenhower may qualify; perhaps more than some others because he did a lot that was both historically significant and important to his country even before he became President.  I've been looking for a good, comprehensive biography or history of DDE and his times, but haven't found a satisfactory one yet.  And he grew up in Kansas, where both my parents were raised and where I spent and at times misspent a small segment of my youth. 

But if we are honest, using the "lasting historical signficance" measure, wouldn't any U.S. President probably qualify?  Especially when there are willing partisans of his party in Congress ready to push his cause?  Will existing "naming opportunities" -- like the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (which has a sculpted head of the eponymous Pres), or the Ronald Reagan Building (how curious that a huge building to house the federal burreaucracy should be named after this particular President) -- suffice for their fans, or will we have to build city-block-sized monuments to them too?  We can already foresee that in 20 years or so, pressure will be building for a monument to Obama, if only as the first African-American President, and to George W. Bush, if only as the creator of the most colossal economic collapse since Hoover... (no, seriously, Bush will be nominated because the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks occurred on his watch). 

For me, it's enough already.  Let's wait a respectable period to decide about someone's historical significance before we throw up monuments to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who happens to get elected President.  A hundred years would be about right.  From that perspective, we know who's who, and save ourselves an awful lot of smelting.

Democracy In Action In Virginia

Like many people, I get a lot of my news from electronic media these days, but the joy of the "real" newspaper is still that you will happen across interesting little bits of information you probably wouldn't have found online.

The latest such is a little article by Laura Vozzella and Anita Kumar in today's Washington Post about Virginia's "Lobby Day," a day set aside specifically for non-professional lobbyists such as ordinary citizens, small organizations without budget for lobbying, or crackpots -- anyone who has an ax to grind or a weapon to conceal -- to get a chance to have a face-to-face exchange with elected representatives in the Commonwealth's Assembly.

I've lived in Virginia for the past 15 years, and at other times in the past, yet I'd never heard of this practice, which apparently is repeated annually.  It's less democratic than it sounds, because I suppose an ordinary person who doesn't represent an organization or cause would have trouble getting anyone to see him.  Yet it seems like a good thing.  Do other states do this?

Still Dithering Over The Misquote On The MLK Memorial

Recall the shameful misquote on the Martin Luther King memorial sculpture that was unveiled to much fanfare back in September?  Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has announced that it will definitely be "fixed," and Washington Post reporter Rachel Manteuffel, who broke the story, has written a smarmy self-congratulatory followup with a very rosy tone.  I was pleased, on reading the headline, that the issue was finally being dealt with, as I and many others had called for. 

But on reading further, I found it's not being dealt with properly.  Not at all.  Salazar is only passing along the promise of the memorial's chief architect that the misquote will be replaced by an "alternative wording," by which he seems to mean a more accurate paraphrase of what King actually said (and ergo, another misquote).  The nominal reason is that the full quote could not be fit retroactively on the slab of granite where it now resides without destroying the monument.  

I find that a rather dubious excuse.  First, officials of the Foundation that funded the memorial are even now admitting that the shortening of King's words occurred only because the sculptor (Chinese) and the architect thought a shorter quote looked better aesthetically -- NOT because they didn't think there was room for it.  Second, if you look at the expanse of surface available on the monument, it certainly looks as if there's space enough to put the entire Constitution of the United States.  (Photo below is the Washington Post's)

So once again it appears that we'll settle for a compromise that entirely overlooks the main point:  this is history, and a quote should be exactly that, not a paraphrase.  I think this monument, and therefore the memorial of which it is a part, is destined to be an object of ridicule for a long time to come; not of King, but of our country's cavalier approach to language, education, and history. 

(An interesting sidelight on our teaching of these things is that the Post's writer, explaining the real meaning of the remark, says that it was originally in the "conditional tense" -- another goof, because "conditional" is not grammatically a tense, but a mode, also sometimes referred to as mood.)

It's unfortunate that we find ourselves in this mess, thanks to an architect and a sculptor, neither of whom seemed to have much sense of history.  The quote itself isn't a particularly good one anyway -- it's long and not especially memorable -- so I'd suggest the right solution is not to re-paraphrase it, but to substitute a different one.  Perhaps it would even be one that "looks right." 

 

Big Projects, Tiny Minds

Another "wait-a-minute" moment arose when I read Washington Post columnist Petula Dvorak's January 10 screed about a mansion being built to house the University of Maryland's president and to provide a huge fund-raising space.  Dvorak complains that the project should have been canceled rather than initiating it now, in an economic downturn.  No matter that the economic downturn shows signs of nearing its end, nor that the project is funded wholly from private funds -- it "looks bad."

This is knee-jerk political correctness, but it makes little sense.  There is a need; it's privately funded; there will be jobs connected with it.  More important, the project probably took years to arrange - the plans, the funding, the contractor.   These things can all unravel; investors find other uses for their money, contractors find other work to bid on, prices go up as the economy recovers.  So, to cancel it now could effectively derail it, not just for a year, but possibly for another several years, leaving the university at a disadvantage in its fundraising efforts until the ducks were all lined up again.

I'm reminded here of another regional project, the extension of the subway west into Virginia to Tysons Corner and Dulles International Airport.  The airports authority made a sensible decision to put the subway station underground, where it would provide a more convenient direct connection to the terminal without forcing passengers to add yet another time-consuming, inconvenient leg to their trip.  But local jurisdictions complained of the additional cost (an above-ground facility, a few hundred yards away from airport transport, would be cheaper).  The objectors won the day; we'll get the job done on the cheap; the station will be built above ground.  But travelers in the region will live with the unfortunate consequences (another nuisance on the way to the airport; longer travel time; another blight on the landscape) for decades to come.

The subway should have gone underground; the University of Maryland should go ahead with its plans.  Capital improvements should be recognized as the long-term, often permanent, effects they create.  They shouldn't be postponed or vitiated by short-term penny-pinching, much less just because they happen to "look bad."      

Perry, Gingrich, And The Commonwealth of Virginia

Big news recently was that both Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich had failed to meet the requirements for getting on the Republican primary ballot in Virginia, an important purple state (and twelfth most populous in the nation).   

Most people - rightly, I believe - interpeted this as indicative of poor planning by these candidates and their staffs.  The exception to the consensus, apparently, was these two politicians themselves, and their staffs.   Perry has sued to change the rules, and it's now reported that a teaparty fan of Gingrich will do likewise.  

Are Virginia's rules for earning a place on the ballot really too strict?  Frankly, I'm a bit surprised to realize that states set these rules.  It seems to me that anything involving the election of a President should be a federal responsibility, so that the rules are the same all across the country.  But given that states do have the responsibility, does it make sense for Republicans, states'-righters one and all, to challenge what the states do?  If either of these suits succeeds in changing Virginia's established rules, can we expect Perry or Gingrich (who by the way actually lives in Virginia), to argue later for a federal government role in determining these guidelines?

That's only one of several hypocrisies here.  In addition, we have the candidates' failure to accept responsibility for their own inaction; the attempt to change the rules after the game has been played, which seems rather unsportsmanlike; and the legitimate question of whether they'd be pushing Virginia to change its regulations if this had occurred in a Democratic primary.  On this last point, the Virginia Republican Party gives us a hint.)  

Well, realistically we all understand that in politics as in many other pursuits, you have to leave no stone unturned in the effort to maximize your advantage.  On the other hand, it's wise to remember that when you turn over stones you can find some unpleasant things underneath.  

Virginia Election Results Inconclusive

Political observers had hoped to be able to read tea(party?) leaves for the 2012 Presidential elections in yesterday's Virginia election for state senators, delegates, and local offices -- but were disappointed.  The results showed no clear trend.

Republicans increased their existing majority in the lower chamber; in the Senate, where Democrats controlled up to now by a slim margin, results aren't final yet.  One Democratic candidate lost to his Republican opponent by only 86 votes and is almost certain to request a recount.  IF that Democrat ultimately is declared the loser, Republicans will enjoy an evenly split Senate in which the Republican Lieutenant Governor will cast tiebreaking votes.

Republicans are already crowing about a grand victory.  But while the 50-50 split represents an improved situation for them, the actual outcome needs to be juxtaposed against the rosy expectation.  It is hardly the rout that GOP strategists had hoped for.  In many areas and offices, incumbent Democratic candidates they had hoped to topple by linking them to Obama held their own, even in some downstate districts that are really Republican territory. 

If there's a message in this election in Virginia, it's that  voters remain uncertain where to look for answers, and 2012 could still produce surprises for either party. 

Halloween Political Hijinks - Or Is It Lowjinks?

National elections are a year away still but here in the Commonwealth of Virginia, we're having a little election next week just for practice - and to elect various state and local officials.

An election event on Halloween should be fun, right?   That's reportedly why the Republican Party cadre of Loudoun County, a rural backwater an hour's drive west of downtown D.C. that is rapidly evolving into yet another Washington DC bedroom community, put out this illustration as part of an e-mail promoting a local Halloween political parade:

As you might imagine, this "promotional" illustration, especially the photo of Obama done like a zombie, and with what looks like a bullet hole in his head, became an overnight web sensation once it got into the public eye, with most people's reaction being that it was inappropriate and unfunny.  The state GOP Chairman rushed to condemn the use of this imagery, saying it had no place in the state's politics; and our Republican Governor called it "shameful and offensive." 

Gee, do ya think?  Or are we maybe just being too sensitive these days?  Some people think so: 

Mark Sell, chairman of the Loudoun County Republican Committee, issued a statement late Monday saying the e-mail was “a light-hearted attempt to inject satire humor into the Halloween holiday.”  “Apparently, some individuals have interpreted an image of Barack Obama that appeared within the e-mail as intending to portray the president as a victim of a violent crime,’’ Sell said. “Nothing could be further from the truth, and we deeply and sincerely apologize to the president and anyone who viewed the image if that was the impression that was left. The LCRC deplores any effort to display, suggest or promote violence against the President or any other political figure.”

Well, I admit to some doubts that "nothing could be farther from the truth." The intention seems rather clear.  It's also gratuitous, since this is a county party organization that isn't remotely an actor in an effort to unseat President Obama - unless of course they are thinking of doing so violently.  If I were a Loudoun County Republican, I'd consider whether Mr. Sell's apparent obliviousness to the current tense state of our politics didn't disqualify him as Chairman.  But let's take him at his word -- say it was an honest misjudgment, yet in several respects a damaging one nevertheless.   The appropriate action is for him to resign, which could lend some credibility to the claim the offense was unintended.

Mobs and Mugs In DC

The Washington Post hit the nail on the head with two different editorials this week.  Both concern local, Washington-DC issues, but have implications for many other parts of the country too.

Exhibit A:  "Maryland Democrats Stack the Odds."  This one makes very valid points about the increasingly extreme gerrymandering that is so common everywhere these days.  It deals with mainly-Democratic Maryland and its Democratic governor; but just across the river, in purple Virginia, the current Republican governor has recently engaged in a similar effort to perpetuate a Republican advantage.  As the Post says, when the politicians choose their voters, instead of the other way 'round, there's something seriously wrong.

What we need for the reapportionment process that occurs every ten years is some sort of apolitical commission, along with a few rules such as "respect existing local boundaries where possible."  Some of the trouble began with civil rights laws in the 1960s that actually required gerrymandering to establish seats where minorities had a good chance to win; this encouraged politicians to think about gerrymandering and provided a shield behind which to do it.  My guess is that if we work on the basis of existing boundaries, and seek contiguous election districts based only on population, the minority problem would take care of itself. 

Mr. Language Man: Overall, my only quibble with this editorial is that you can't "stack" odds; you can stack a deck, or fix odds.

Exhibit B:  "For Freedom Plaza Protestors, Freedom Reigns."   This item rightly praises the National Park Service decision to extend the permit for the anti-Wall-Street protestors.  They technically should have vacated on Monday; they didn't; the NPS worked out a few rules to ensure that other groups who have been assigned space at other times will still get it, and has extended this group's stay to four months.  This successfully defuses tension and obviates highly public scenes of demonstrators getting hauled off to jail kicking and screaming; it's predictable that four months from now (February?) or even one month (November), few of them will remain.

We who live here have to make our way around them, but we're pretty much used to a half-dozen concurrent events anyway; a march here, a demonstration there, a marathon in a third place, a nut case over on the Mall threatening something or other, so we'll adjust to this, too.

Fix The MLK Monument

I'm not sure why it took them so long to reach what I think is the only possible conclusion, but the Washington Post editorial today finally offers the opinion that the bowdlerized quote on one face of the monument should be corrected.

Otherwise, we condone in big, bold, chiseled letters the kind of sloppy literacy that is such a problem among so many of our college graduates these days.

Walmart Art

Walmart Art.  Does that sound like a bad idea?  Well, it depends on how you mean it.

The good meaning, to my mind, is the new Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, financed by the Wal-mart fortune, and located in the Arkansas town where the giant discount merchandising firm first saw light of day.

I think it's a very positive development that the new museum has chosen to focus on American art; that by all accounts, it's "doing everything right" in terms of building its collection; and perhaps best of all, that it is located in a rural setting, far distant from any major city, much removed from the places where we expect to find "important" art collections. 

Here in the Washington DC area, it seems a new museum opens its doors about every other week.  In only the past decade or two, we've seen the Spy Museum, the Newseum, and the National Museum of the American Indian.  Pending now is construction of the National Museum of African-American History and Culture.  And these are only the blockbusters; I'm sure I've neglected to mention several score of smaller museums that have popped up in the same period. 

It's too much.  The overconcentration of museums in a few major urban areas gets to the point where it's impossible to take everything in.   Also, it seems to me to create a downward cycle of less and less interesting special exhibits, as each museum feels the need to try to grab its share of the museum-visiting public by having a new "attraction."   

Let's hope that the Crystal Bridges museum will become a success, expanding the audience for worthy art beyond the usual jaded clientele.  I wish them well.