Arch Thoughts

Donald Trump is threatening to build a massive triumphal arch in D.C. A rendering of the proposed monument has been released:

Of course, even if the arch is built, it may or may not look like this. That details of Trump’s ballroom keep changing—not to mention his justification for the war against Iran—suggests that this project’s details are likely to be volatile.

Only yesterday, AP reported that the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, a body now composed of Trump lackeys, has approved a design for the arch somewhat modified from the image shown above. The lions—which often represent royalty—are gone, and two gold eagles have been added atop the arch. Gold remains a significant surface finish consistent with the Trump nouveau riche aesthetic. The phrases “One Nation Under God” and “Liberty and Justice for All” are to appear on either side of the monument (in gold lettering, of course).

The most obvious criticisms of the Trump triumphal arch are that (1) it would be a major piece of architecture in our capital city reflecting the desires and aesthetics of a single man. (2) no source of funding for the arch has been identified, (3) there is no obvious need or constituency for the arch, (4) it is outrageously large (more than twice as tall as the nearby Lincoln Memorial and nearly half as tall as the Washington Monument), and (5) it interrupts the sight line across the Potomac River.

The inscriptions are curious. They are clearly taken from the “Pledge of Allegiance.” (I have problems with the Pledge, particularly with the invocation of God, but we can leave that aside for the moment.) Why should we prefer “One Nation Under God” to “In God We Trust,” which, unfortunately, is the nation’s official motto? (See my essay “A Matter of Mottos.”) The Pledge has no such official standing. Likewise, the Pledge-derived “Liberty and Justice for All” is an unofficial phrase. I would prefer simply “Liberty,” which adorns our coins. Arguably, true liberty, which is in short supply at the moment, implies justice.

Historically, triumphal arches are most often celebratory of military victories and/or the soldiers responsible for them. What is Trump’s arch for? Trump has suggested that the District of Columbia needs an arch to mark the entrance to the District. One has to ask why, however, particularly as the arch blocks significant sight lines. And where should such an entrance monument be?

According to Adam Gopnik, “When asked by a reporter whom the arch would be for, Trump said, ‘Me.’” According to Gopnik, bigness is the point of the arch. He pointed out that Hitler wanted to build an enormous arch in his proposed capital city for the Third Reich. I suggest that Trump’s arch really does celebrate a Trump victory, namely, the triumph of autocracy over democracy. (Our semiquincentennial is simply a convenient excuse to build a 250-foot tall arch.) Ironically, a gold, winged Lady Liberty adorns the top of the arch. She is, I suggest, ready to fly away from the United States.

Celebrating and Pandering

Throughout the twentieth century, steam locomotives were mostly black, with lighter smokeboxes, whose working temperature made the use of ordinary paint impractical. Rarely did they sport other colors—sometimes blue, green, or, in the case of the famous Southern Pacific GS-4s, red, orange, and silver.

The advent of diesel-electric road locomotives brought more color to the rails. The diesel’s largely flat sides facilitated decoration that the complex appliances outfitted to its stream predecessors never did. The new locomotives were billboards of color—silver, red, yellow, orange, purple, and others. Locomotive liveries usually advertised the operating railroad or, less frequently, the locomotive builder. No one could see the red, yellow, and silver warbonnet paint scheme on a GM locomotive and not know that it was motive power of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway.

Infrequently, individual diesels were painted to celebrate an event, cause, or program—the Salt Lake City Olympics or Operation Lifesaver. In a time when consolidation in the railroad industry has eliminated so many famous names, successor railroads have taken to painting locomotives in the colors of railroads they had swallowed up. These “heritage” locomotives have been quite popular with the public, even if the liveries of the “fallen flags” had never been seen on more modern motive power. 

Lately, railroads have been painting engines to celebrate the nation’s 250th birthday. For example, Canadian Pacific Kansas City locomotive 1776 is mostly red with white lettering. Its undercarriage and trucks are blue, and four white stripes interrupt the red forward of a solid blue rear. Additional markings, including the America 250 logo and a tiny American flag, tastefully adorn the locomotive body.

Then there is the Union Pacific. It has a locomotive numbered 1776 that it decorated on the cheap. It is painted in UP’s standard armour yellow with silver trucks. There is a large American flag on each side, a design element similar to one that has appeared on its locomotives in the past. Like the CPKC’s commemorative locomotive, the America 250 logo appears on the side nose of the engine.

Then there is UP 4547. This locomotive, according to the railroad’s Web site, “was built in partnership with [locomotive builder] Wabtec,” though UP has provided only a drawing, not a photograph of the unit. The left and right sides of this engine are shown in this UP graphic:

Although UP 4547 is supposedly celebrating the nation’s 250th birthday, in reality, it is celebrating Donald J. Trump, whose name appears on both sides in gold lettering. The road number, of course, refers to Trump as the 45th and 47th president. The left side shows a gigantic, waving Betsy Ross flag; the right side shows a similarly depicted current U.S. flag. Where CPKC 1776 placed the America 250 logo, this locomotive displays an eagle derived very loosely from the Great Seal of the United States. The America 250 logo is nowhere to be seen.

Remarkably, UP CEO Jim Vena has insisted that this locomotive is simply honoring the nation’s 250th anniversary. “We’re actually celebrating America. We are not celebrating any individual,” he is quoted as saying. It is difficult to take this pronouncement seriously.  UP has been seeking government approval to buy Norfolk Southern. Its first merger proposal was rejected by the Surface Transportation Board as inadequate. A revised merger proposal was submitted to the STB on April 30. It is difficult to see locomotive 4547 as anything other than an attempt to win Trump’s favor by appealing to his ego.

Donald Trump regularly conflates his person with the United States itself. This is appalling and contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. It is equally appalling when a railroad does the same thing. Unfortunately, to get this administration to do what one wants it to do, it has become necessary to bribe the chief executive either by putting money into his pocket (or into the pockets of his family) or by appealing to his inflated ego. We are used to seeing this kind of pandering in banana republics; it is heartbreaking to see it in the United States.

A Proposed Peace Agreement

Everybody knows the war is over,
Everybody knows the good guys lost.
            — Leonard Cohen and Sharon Robinson

One may quibble about who has won or lost the Trump-Netanyahu war against Iran. (Were there any “good guys”?) What is clear is that the world is worse off because of the war.

It seems likely, though by no means certain, that the war, as it involves Iran directly, is largely at an end. Although President Trump seeks to impose his own set of demands on Iran, Iran has other ideas. Unless Trump actually bombs Iran back “to the Stone Ages”—a move that would affirm the United States’s role as despised international pariah—a resolution of the war will require give-and-take among all parties. For each side to get something it wants, it must give up something it would rather not. Such is the nature of negotiations generally and of peace negotiations specifically.

Below, I propose an outline of peace terms that seem reasonable. (An actual agreement would require additional details.) Explanatory comments appear below.

1. Ships of all nations shall be allowed to pass through the Strait of Hormuz unimpeded and without payment of any toll. Neither the United States of America nor the Islamic Republic of Iran nor the State of Israel shall interfere with the passage of vessels transiting the strait.
2. To facilitate the return of the Strait of Hormuz to its status quo ante, the United States and Iran shall coöperate to remove any mines that may be present in the vicinity of the strait.
3. The United States will immediately lift the blockade of all Iranian ports and will not reimpose such blockades in the future.
4. Iran shall cease and refrain from military action against other sovereign states unless it is itself attacked. 
5. Iran shall disclose all enriched uranium in its possession. It shall not retain uranium enriched to more than 60%. It shall not increase its current quantity of enriched uranium. Iran shall submit to international inspection to verify compliance with these provisions.
6. All international sanctions against Iran shall be removed.
7. Iran shall not engage in any activity aimed at destroying or interfering with the software assets of other nations or of physical assets that rely on such software assets.
8. Iran shall not attempt to kill any citizen of another nation on foreign soil, either directly or through the agency of third parties.
9. Neither the United States nor Israel will attack Iran as long as it abides by this agreement.

Readers, particularly Republican ones, may find these provisions insufficiently draconian. More severe terms are likely to be rejected by Iran, leading to a stalemate or to renewed hostilities. Most important to the world at large is the resumption of normal transportation by sea and the limitation on Iran’s enrichment of uranium. (In fact, Iran might agree to even stronger restrictions, but maybe not.) Iran, of course, would like to demand reparations. (Good luck with that!) It will, however, welcome provisions that allow it to earn money from commercial operations. The devastation visited upon Iran will limit that country’s ability (and, one hopes, inclination) to export weapons in support of client organizations such as Hamas. Iran’s manufacture of drones and missiles will likely be the subject of much negotiation. It will be difficult to prohibit and police. More subtle activities are explicitly prohibited. Admittedly, the agreement is unbalanced in that the United States and Israel have recourse if Iran does not live up to the agreement; Iran is allowed no similar recourse.

Alas, neither the United States nor Israel has sufficient leverage to impose a more democratic government on Iran or, barring that, to protect its citizens from the depredations of its current regime.

Terms such as those I have proposed are not ideal, but, given the hostilities foolishly embarked upon by the United States and Israel, they may represent the best the aggressors can expect.

Fortuitous Listening

While performing domestic chores this afternoon, I had been listening to the CD “The Best of Tom Paxton.” In fact, I played the disc more than once.

I looked up at the clock and saw that it was nearly 9 o’clock (EDT). It was time for “Folkstage” on WFMT. I seldom hear all of “Folkstage,” though I often hear the end of it when I tune in to hear “The Midnight Special,” which airs at 10.

As fate would have it this night, the “Folkstage” program was a rebroadcast of a 2015 concert with Tom Paxton and Janis Ian performed at Chicago’s Old Time School of Folk Music. Obviously, I like Tom Paxton. And Janis Ian is one of my favorite singers. I knew and loved many of the songs sung on the program.

What an unexpected treat!

The War on Iran

I often post comments to my Facebook account without posting or taking note of them here. I posted an earlier version of the above graphic on Facebook earlier today. The more I think about it, though, the angrier I am that our ignorant, narcissistic president has taken this country to war, endangering the world economy and perhaps world peace as well. I wrote an essay about this on my Web site a few days ago. I may have been less angry then. Anyway, I invite you to read it.

UFE

When Donald Trump, as soon as he regained the presidency, attacked DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), I assumed that he deplored the DEI offices found in corporations, universities, nonprofits, governmental entities, and elsewhere. I was wrong, which quickly became obvious as the administration began not only threatening such offices but also expunging the words “diversity,” “equity,” and “inclusion” wherever they could be found. The administration’s manic excisions even extended to those words on the World Wide Web appearing in contexts having nothing to do with DEI.

Dictionary.com offers a definition of DEI as good as can be found anywhere: “a conceptual framework that promotes the fair treatment and full participation of all people, especially in the workplace, including populations who have historically been underrepresented or subject to discrimination because of their background, identity, disability, etc.”

I suspect that many people—I would hope most people, including even Trump supporters—would endorse the objectives of DEI when presented with such an explicit definition. It is a fair assumption that Mr. Trump is not among that population. 

Mr. Trump knows exactly what his anti-DEI campaign is all about. He hates diversity. He favors American-born white, preferably male, people to those of other races or with conspicuous heritage from anywhere outside the U.S. (He makes an exception for white South Africans.)

Mr. Trump has no interest in treating all citizens, much less all people, equally. Only those people who can be useful to him are worthy of consideration. If you can make him money or kiss his ass in a politically useful manner, you become Mr. Trump’s friend, at least for the moment.

It follows, of course, that Mr. Trump has no interest in showing anyone special favors as compensation for historical injury, not only because he sees no personal gain in doing so, but also because he possesses the historical understanding of a slug.

I suggest that the president’s anti-DEI attitude can be properly characterized with another acronym, namely UFE. That stands for

• Uniformity: America for right-thinking MAGA white people
• Favoritism: Partiality is shown to the president’s friends
• Exclusion: People who are not useful to the president are of no account

Donald Trump, I submit, is the first UFE president.