The bureaucrats in Washington approved the construction of a monument that honors trees, metal curtains and really large cement poles.
The plan for the Dwight D. Eisenhower Memorial, designed by Frank Gehry, involves erecting a life-size statue of Eisenhower — as a seven-year-old surrounded by 80-foot poles with attached mesh curtains depicting the Midwest. It’s a nonsensical, avant-garde approach to remembering one of history’s most notable traditionalists.
Unlike all the other monuments in DC, the design for the Eisenhower memorial was selected under a closed process, meaning only certain individuals could submit plans. This may be the reason that the progressive architect Frank Gehry and the controversial sculptor Charles Ray won — without contest. Eisenhower’s family favored an open design process, with each design submitted given fair consideration. But for an unknown reason, that didn’t happen. The construction of a memorial to a president, something that should be historical, seems manipulated to carry out the purposes of a specific political philosophy.
It’s also ugly. The memorial would occupy over four acres of space and compete with the scale of the Department of Education, the adjacent building. The undisturbed green space on the site would disappear entirely. Amidst this monstrosity would be one small statue of an elementary school-aged Eisenhower. There will be nothing about his personal life or presidency. Like Gehry’s postmodern views, it’s a meaningless portrayal that adds no beauty or historical value to the nation’s capital.
The design intends to emphasize Eisenhower’s humble beginnings, as opposed to his accomplishments and contributions. Most of the individuals memorialized on the mall came from humble beginnings, but those beginnings were not what earned them the monument. Ronald Reagan came from a poor family in Illinois, but that is not what he is admired for — nor should it be. Eisenhower served as the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during World War II, supported the civil rights movement before it was popular, led Columbia University as its president, and spent eight years as the President of the United States. But according to the memorial, Ike’s greatest accomplishment was reaching his seventh birthday.
One wonders if this monument has ideological implications — is there such a thing as great statesmen, or are there only boys from the plains who fatalistically end up in the Oval Office?
At the very least, the monument should fit our 34th president’s character and taste, and his family vehemently claims he would hate both the design and its implications. Eisenhower’s biographer, Stephen Ambrose, wrote that Eisenhower was disciplined, courageous, and intelligent, but was “unsophisticated in his musical, artistic and literary tastes.” Ike wasn’t interested in complicated artistic statements. He was a professional soldier who focused on executing his duty. The monument should reflect the man himself. Eisenhower, for all his historical weight, deserves a monument he would respect.
