Archives for category: Washington, DC

Donald Trump is slapping his name on as many buildings and public spaces as he can while President. Trump sneakers, Trump watches, Trump coins, Trump Crypto, and Trump Bibles. Sad to think of the Trump fans who emptied their pockets to buy his merch, but it is sadder still to think about how he’s leaving his gaudy mark on the nation’s capital.

You know that he’s torn down the East Wing of the White House and intends to build a massive ballroom there that is bigger than the White House. You know he paved over Jacqueline Kennedy’s Rose Garden on the White House grounds. You know that he’s closing the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for two years while he reconstructs it, having alienated both audiences and artists.

But then there is the Arch. Trump wants an arch that’s bigger than anything else in the nation.

On Thursday, the stacked Commission on Fine Arts approved Trump’s Big Tasteless Arch. Almost every member of the Commission was selected by Trump, giving him a free hand to build, design, and redesign monumements to himself.

Here is what the Washington Post’s art and culture critic Phillip Kennecott thinks about the Arch. He began by saying in the sub-head: “America fought to defeat fascism. This ‘triumphal arch’ reeks of it.”

He writes:

Donald Trump’s giant victory arch appears to have an official name. Since October, when the president showed preliminary designs for a gigantic arch proposed for a traffic circle near Arlington National Cemetery, the monument has been referred to variously as a triumphal arch, the Independence Arch and the Arc de Trump.

The last of these isn’t entirely a joke. When asked whom the arch would honor, Trump said: “Me.”
But renderings of the arch, submitted to the Commission of Fine Arts in advance of its discussion of the project Thursday, refer to it as the Triumphal Arch. And it will be as big as feared — 250 feet high — larger than arches of antiquity, taller even than ghastly monuments to authoritarian triumphalism, including the victory arch in Pyongyang, North Korea.

It is an insult to the men and women who risk their lives to protect democracy, who have fought in wars against fascism, who have actually achieved victory rather than merely declared and celebrated it. Its symbolism is borrowed and confused, and it will block a sacred vista that connects the Lincoln Memorial to the final resting place of the Civil War dead, and veterans from every major war and conflict this country has fought.

The main body of the arch will rise 166 feet from an elevated base. Atop that will be a 60-foot-tall gilded statue that looks like an AI-mash-up of the Statue of Liberty holding a torch and the Greek goddess of victory, Nike, resembling in its glittering ostentation the statue atop a victory column in Mexico City erected by the brutal dictator Porfirio Díaz in 1910. The design of the arch is a little simpler than some of the more garish proposals Trump floated earlier. Gigantic Corinthian columns have been removed, and there are no longer gilded statues in the niches on the two main supporting legs.

But there is no lack of gilding in other places, including the ornamental relief on the face of the attic, with lettering spelling out “One Nation Under God” and “Liberty and Justice For All,” and on the four sculpted lions that flank the arch. The lions seem to be borrowed from the beloved statues at the entrance to the New York Public Library. Why? Why not.

Trump set his mind on a Roman victory arch after visiting the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, and the design is a hodgepodge of borrowed elements. The 250-foot height is left over from an earlier idea that the monument would honor the 250th anniversary of American independence, and the phrase “one nation under God” only gained wide currency in the United States during the 1950s, when it was added to the Pledge of Allegiance after pressure from Christian groups. It will technically be in the District of Columbia, but on the southern side of the Potomac River, disrupting the symbolism of Arlington Memorial Bridge, which was part of a grand symbolic design that honored post-Civil War reconciliation.

But the symbolism and the details, and even the size of the monument, matter less than the mere fact that it perverts a fundamentally American idea about war. We have fought them, we have died in them, and we have brought war to too many people who did not deserve our meddling with their politics and sovereignty.

But no matter the cause, no matter how great the victory, we fundamentally honor sacrifice and service. We celebrate the end of wars and the achievement of peace, not victory. Roman victory arches are lovely to look at, but they were primarily political statements, assertions of personal power and propaganda by ambitious men.

When Abraham Lincoln entered war-ravaged Richmond on April 4, 1865, he came with about a dozen sailors. It wasn’t a parade. When asked how the defeated South should be treated, he said, “Let ’em up easy.” In the renderings submitted to the CFA, it is clear that not only will the arch block the view that connects the Lincoln Memorial to Arlington Cemetery, it will also frame perfect views of Arlington House, the Greek revival mansion on a hill owned by the slaveholding traitor Robert E. Lee.

If this is a victory arch, what victory is being honored?

The question is all the more pressing given the current moment, when the United States is at a stalemate with Iran, which it has brutalized but not defeated. Like the president’s statements about the war, including a ghastly threat to annihilate the entire civilization of Iran, the rhetoric of this arch is all about escalation. The primary element of its design is its colossal scale, as if being big can compensate for being confused.

And so, like Trump’s declarations of victory, this arch is merely loud, not clear or confident. When people die, we say RIP, for the Latin “requiescat in pace,” an old prayer: Rest in peace. The men and women who lie in Arlington have earned that peace, and they deserve our quiet, humble gratitude, not this monstrous monument to power, war and one man’s ego.

Mayor Muriel Bowser of the District of Columbia announced today that she had chosen Dr. Lewis Ferebee as the next chancellor of the D.C. Public Schools. Dr. Ferebee is currently superintendent of the Indianapolis Public Schools. From what I know, he has worked amiably with the reformer group Mind Trust, which is intent on characterizing as many schools as possible in Indianapolis.

If you live in that city and can provide advice to readers in D.C. about Dr. Ferebee, please let us know. Perhaps my view from afar is unfair. Answer this question: Is Dr. Ferebee committed to public schools under democratic control? Has he resisted the Reformers? Will he steer a middle course in D.C., where the Waltons have opened a large number of charter schools and nearly half the DC pupils are in charters? Will reformers continue to have the run of the place? Will Dr. Ferebee insist on accountability for charters?

Peter Dreier of Occidental College explains how the Occupy Wall Street movement started a momentum that changed Seattle:

Friends,

An idea that only a year ago appeared both radical and impractical has become a reality. On Monday, Seattle struck a blow against rising inequality when its City Council unanimously adopted a city wide minimum wage of $15 an hour — the highest in the nation.

In my new article in The American Prospect, “How Seattle’s $15 Minimum Wage Victory Began in New York City’s Zuccotti Park,” I explain that this dramatic change in public policy is partly the result of changes brought about by last November’s Seattle municipal elections. But it is also the consequence of changing social conditions beyond Seattle, shifts in public opinion about business, government, and the poor, and years of effective grassroots activism around the country.

We can trace Seattle’s remarkable victory to the wave of local “living wage” campaigns in the 1990s, growing public outrage about corporate abuse and widening inequality, the explosion of anger that became Occupy Wall Street, and the rising protest movement of low-wage workers in the past two years.

Seattle’s union and community organizers, and their allies in government, did not wait for the time to be “ripe.” They helped ripen the time — seizing new opportunities and building on past successes.

Now that Seattle has established a new standard, the pace of change is likely to accelerate quickly as activists and politicians elsewhere seek to capture the new mood. Many other cities and states are now looking to follow in Seattle’s footsteps. The momentum for raising the minimum wage will not only improve living conditions for millions of Americans. It will also spark a new wave of organizing, by revealing how the combination of inside politics and outside protest can bring about progressive change.

Five years from now, Americans may look back at this remarkable victory in Seattle and wonder what all the fuss was about.

Feel free to circulate and repost.

Peter

——————————————————————
Peter Dreier
Dr. E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics
Chair, Urban & Environmental Policy Department
Occidental College
1600 Campus Road
Los Angeles, CA 90041
Phone: (323) 259-2913
FAX: (323) 259-2734
Website: http://employees.oxy.edu/dreier
New book: The 100 Greatest Americans of the 20th Century: A Social Justice Hall of Fame (Nation Books) — published July 2012

“The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality” – Dante

Sue Peters is a parent activist who had the courage to run for election to the Seattle school board. The big money bet against her. They were wrong. Sue won, and she won decisively. I am happy to say that she was endorsed by the Network for Public Education, and I hope that our endorsement got her a few extra votes.

Sue wrote a letter to thank the board of the NPE and to describe the tough campaign in which she prevailed. Her victory gives heart to all of us who are pushing back against the corporate reform movement. We will make our public schools stronger and better for all, not by handing them off to private management, but by engaging the public in the work of supporting them.

Dear Diane and members and supporters of the Network for Public Education,

Once again, I am pleased to extend my thanks to you and NPE for your invaluable support and endorsement of my grassroots candidacy for Seattle School Board. I am thrilled to announce that we won – convincingly!

On Election night, we led by 51-48 percent, and that lead has only grown with every new vote tally. We are now approaching a 9-point margin, at 54-45 percent. That is nearly a 14,000-vote lead.

Why Our Win Matters:

This is a victory not only for my campaign, but for communities, families, and educators everywhere who are the key stakeholders in public education, but whose voices are not always heard in the national debate over education reform, or in our own local school district.

This is also a victory for authentic, grassroots democracy. Seattle voters did not allow a small group of moneyed interests to buy this election.

My opponent’s campaign and political action committee (PAC) spent a record-breaking $240,000+, much of it on negative campaigning, most of it bankrolled by a small group of wealthy proponents of corporate ed reform and charter schools.

The PAC attacked my candidacy four times throughout the campaign with progressively more mendacious and offensive mailers. The attacks focused almost entirely on defending the Gates Foundation, in a bizarre and unsuccessful attempt to discredit me, and completely ignored the important issues facing our school district like overcrowding, inequity of resources among our schools, excessive testing and low teacher morale.

This amount of money and such tactics are unprecedented not only in Seattle but Washington State for a school board race.

Thankfully, voters were not fooled by the distortions and diversions.

I am proud of my authentic, fiscally responsible, volunteer-driven campaign, which remained focused on the issues and maintained its integrity.

I am also grateful to everyone who helped us counter the barrage of misinformation, and to those of you who promoted my candidacy personally. I want to particularly thank Dr. Diane Ravitch, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education and national education historian, who recognized that my campaign represented a national battle over the integrity and future of public education. Her support gave important legitimacy to our campaign and to my efforts over the years to engage on education issues, as both a journalist and parent.

I believe my near decade of experience with the Seattle Public School District resonated with voters, as well as my clear commitment to keeping the public in public education.

Thank you again.

Sincerely,

Sue Peters
Parent, journalist, public education advocate,
and Seattle School Board Director-Elect

Sue Peters, parent activist, is running for the school board in Seattle.

She has raised $28,289.

Her opponent, Suzanne Dale Estey, has raised over $100,000, plus an independent PAC has raised more than another $100,000 for Estey.

That means that Sue Peters is outspent about 7-1.

Estey has raised more money for her contest than any school board race in the state’s history.

Read the list of Estey’s contributors: it is the same handful of wealthy entrepreneurs who have been pouring big money into election after election in Seattle and in the state of Washington, to promote charters, test-based evaluation, Teach for America, and other failed policies.

Few, if any, of Estey’s donors have children in the Seattle public schools.

Why are the rich buying up school board seats?

In Seattle, is democracy for sale to the highest bidder?