It was with some considerable surprise that I learned from my local paper that a national monument to Dwight D. Eisenhower is in the works. According to this report, the monument was approved in 2006, yet I don't remember hearing anything about it at the time.
This one must have been slipped through the decision-making process (which includes a national commission and Congress) in the dead of night. And that's not surprising. Eisenhower, being equated with the likes of FDR, Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington? Quick, name one achievement of the Eisenhower years. Ending the Korean War hardly seems to qualify, as the country was overripe to have it ended. Most people, if they think of anything, would probably recall the creation of the Interstate Highway System, which still bears Eisenhower's name and which, it seems to me, ought to be enough. Shouldn't "monumental" status - such as the 80-foot-high columns described here - be reserved for the real giants among us? Sorry, Eisenhower is not one of those.
It's a local matter, too. Some of us who live in the DC area get a little fed up with the constant sprouting of monuments in every available patch of land. Wouldn't it be possible to just have a little park here or there without a statue of some politician? Between the monuments, the government buildings, and the museums, you can go for blocks and blocks in some parts of DC to find a simple drugstore, a restaurant, or any sign of liveliness or vibrancy. It makes the city a desert at night, and reduces its livability.
The proliferation of monuments continues nonetheless. The Martin Luther King memorial was said to occupy the last good section of land available for monuments; space was said to be running out. I predict they'll find room for more in the future, both for entities and nonentities. Stand by for the James Buchanan monument soon.
Full of sailent points. Don't stop believing or writing!
Posted by: Ricky | January 29, 2013 at 06:13 PM