If Donald Trump is remembered for anything, it’ll be his obsession with landmarks commemorating himself. The useless White House ballroom, and the inexcusable demolition of the rose garden, the renaming of the Kennedy Center, and the golden tat adorning the White House apparently aren’t enough.
The arch will supposedly be 250 feet tall. Modelled roughly on the Arc de Triomphe, this thing will be timed to coincide with America’s 250th anniversary. It will be funded by “leftover donations” to the much-reviled ballroom.
You’ve probably heard of brutalist architecture. It’s useless and ornamental. It reflects the bad taste of its proponents.
This is brattish architecture. Many despots, notably Louis the 14th, the mass-murdering king who bankrupted France with his many wars, liked monumental architecture rather than competent architecture. The Palace of Versailles was built with no regard for sanitation, for example.
In the case of the US, however, there’s something grotesque about even the theory of a triumphal arch. What could possibly be less appropriate?
The United States is no longer anything like the beacon of hope it was from inception. The lack of originality and any specifically American characteristics of the proposed arch are absurd but typical of this administration.
What triumph is this useless arch commemorating? The worst living conditions since the Great Depression? An America at war with itself? An America that refuses to modernize or recognize the rights of its own citizens? Rampant criminality and corruption? The last mad bleat of an ex-superpower? The triumph of disgusting parasites pumping the life and identity out of America?
The best name for this new absurdity would be the Arc de Sleaze.
It’ll be a last-minute token of pseudo-patriotism, like the rest of Trump’s horrible facades. Stick a red cap made in China on it, and you’ve got your American icon.
Suggestion – Tear this insult down ASAP.
_________________________________________________________
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.
