John Tyler was our 10th President (1841-1845) and the first Vice-President to reach the White House via the death of his predecessor. That was the ill-starred William Henry Harrison, the oldest elected POTUS until our recent spate of geriatrics, who died shortly after being sworn in. Tyler is regarded as an obscure and rather dishonored President—he served in Jefferson Davis’s Cabinet during the Civil War, but his one big decision was a crucial one that took guts and audacity. The U.S. may not have survived without it.
As with many parts of the Constitution, the Founders were infuriatingly vague on the question of Presidential succession. It was unclear whether the VP was to serve as an acting President until a special election was held, or whether he became President for the rest of the dead President’s term. Tyler was a Democrat who ran on a ticket with a Whig President, so settling the issue promised to be a political battle that could have escalated into a dangerous crisis. Tyler didn’t wait for Congress to debate the matter: he just took the oath of office, said “I am the President at least until until the 1844 election,” and dared anyone to try to block him. Nobody did. That set “The Tyler Precedent,” and we should all say a silent prayer to John Tyler for it.
Yet it was an “autocratic” decision, one that set a new (and crucial) “norm.” A weaker leader would have sought “process” and “consensus”, and, I’m personally convinced, we would have ended up with a bad succession system that might have been disastrous following the deaths of Lincoln and FDR, and perhaps others.
Fast forward to 2025, as the Axis is trying to make a scandal out of President Trump’s audacious remodeling of the East Wing of the White House to give himself and future Presidents an appropriate ballroom for special functions. I had long wondered why Presidents were reduced to erecting tents on the White House lawn for larger events than the available space in the building could accommodate. I suspect the reason was that no one before Trump was willing to deal with the inevitable controversy and red tape of adding the necessary structure. Trump could have submitted his proposal to the various historic preservation groups and sought approval from Congress, but he knew, realistically, that would mean no ballroom.
So, in the best tradition of John Tyler, President Trump just did it. Once the East Wing had been leveled for the expansion, what were critics going to do? Impeach him? Forgoing White House renovation protocols, if they even exist, is hardly impeachable conduct. Trump is President, he felt that a ball room was needed, so he’s building one. That’s what strong leaders do, and why they accomplish goals that weak leaders do not and cannot. It’s not being autocratic. It’s being effective.
The reaction of the news media and others in the “Anything Trump Does Is the End of the World!” cult has bordered on hilarious. Anderson Cooper last night sounded like he was doing a Monty Python sketch with his solemn hyperbole. “Look at this photo! It looks like a bomb destroyed the East Wing!” he said. (I’m paraphrasing.) Or, you know, it looked like many houses in my neighborhood when their owners are in the process of adding extensions. “People who have looked at plans for the ballroom see an uncanny resemblance to King Louis the 14th’s ballroom in the Palace at Versailles!” Cooper said. OH NOOOO! HE’S A KING!!!! Actually, the planned ballroom is evocative of many venues around D.C., like the Willard Hotel and the Mayflower, both of which sport large, elaborate, gilded ballrooms.
ABC’s David Muir was as hysterical as Cooper but not as funny. “Now to the growing outrage over the demolition at The White House,” he began. What growing outrage? The only thing growing is the manufactured hysteria over a decision that literally has no effect on the lives of any Americans, except the workers who will get paid as a result of it. The average American couldn’t tell you anything about the East Wing or why it is worth preserving in its traditional form. The White House is a historic structure, true, but it is most important as where Presidents do their job of leading the nation. Its function gets priority over its architecture. Ah, but to listen to Muir, you would think that Trump was turning the Capitol into a multiplex cinema.
“Tonight, the before and after images right here. Satellite images showing the East Wing of The White House just weeks ago, and look at this! This is what it looks like now. The East Wing completely gone tonight!” Muir raved. Yes, you fool, that’s because the project isn’t finished yet.
‘The President had said his $300 million ballroom would not affect the integrity of The White House,” he went on. Whatever that means. “So Mary Bruce is asking The White House tonight why the American people weren’t told the entire East Wing would be gone, and all of this amid the government shutdown now day twenty-three,” Muir said. The construction isn’t exactly hidden from the public, is it? And what does it have to do with the shutdown? Nothing, as far as I can see.
I have to mention that the best Axis media meltdown was that of Rachel Maddow, when she realized that her new employer, Comcast, was one of the donors to the project. She looked as overcome with grief as she would have if Bernie Sanders had been hit by a bus.
These people are ridiculous. Do they know how silly this kind of emotional overkill looks?
What the East Wing episode shows is that Trump knows how to get things done, and does not hesitate to use his power and office to drive through the petty obstacles and trivia that would stop other, lesser leaders when a problem needs to be solved. I know a new ballroom is hardly on the same scale as deciding how Vice Presidents replace dead ones, but the leadership principle is the same: if an issue is going to be settled, it often takes certitude, fortitude, and decisiveness by the one at the top. I don’t have an opinion on whether the ballroom the White House will end up with will be a benefit to the nation or not, but the President thinks so, he was elected to make such decisions, and he knew the way to get the project done was to just do it as the critics screamed.
John Tyler would have approved.
Ethics Alarms 
Hasn’t someone, anyone (Randi Weingarten I’m looking at you. Mr. Hyatt Hotels?) sued Trump in the D.C. District Court to enjoin the demolition? Certainly the D.C. Circuit would have upheld such an injunction. Are the Dems asleep at the wheel on this?
I wonder how many people even have a vague idea of what the East Wing even looked like. I didn’t. In the photos it looks as if it was built during the war with left over stuff from the Pentagon. It’s as charming as a WWII Army Air Force Base barracks. And anyway, it’s home to the First Lady’s offices. Shouldn’t the left be celebrating Melania Trump no longer has an office?
Needless to say, these people are pathetic.
By the way, I saw a piece likening the new ballroom to the ballroom at The Hermitage in St. Petersburg. I guess they’ll have to start doing “No Czars” marches.
Funny how they call it the “X Million Dollar Trump ballroom.” Gasp! Do they even have a column in D.C. for hundreds of millions of dollars in expenditures? Is $350 Million even a rounding error in D.C? Can’t AOC simply print money to pay for it?
I agree that there is an overreaction. And I think there would have been lengthy delays if he had gone through the normal process of architectural review and planning. (I think he is technically not required to do so, as the WH is specifically exempt, but I bet most presidents would have done).
There are, however, advantages to doing so. A single person being in charge of aesthetics can work out great–or be a disaster. Also–we are a democracy. Investing unchecked power in a single person is not typically how our government operates. There are few presidential powers that are unchecked (like the pardon power). I can tell you why most presidents wouldn’t have done this–they would have waited for a budget authorization from Congress. The system was set up so they have the power of the purse.
The president assured the nation that the construction wouldn’t touch the White House. He let everyone believe that it would be built alongside the East Wing. His press secretary even said that. Instead, it demolished it. Again, I don’t think it is a big deal, but it seems to be important that something false doesn’t get promulgated.
I agree, though, that this is likely to help Trump. Government that does things quickly, and competently, is popular. This is a point Ezra Klein makes in his excellent new book. Democrats have become the party of PROCESS. They think they will be rewarded for studiously adhering to process, and making the process fair, inclusive, union-friendly, LGBTQ positive, environmentally sensitive, and non-polluting, etc etc. BUT–as Klein points out, this can mean an 8 year delay in constructing something, pushing costs through the roof…look at the effort to build high speed rail in CA, or a couple blocks of subway in NYC. Or new green infrastructure for charging cars. So Trump’s method, if the building is beautiful and quickly built, is likely to be a small boost to his popularity/image. If it’s ugly, expensive, delayed…the opposite.
Yes, excellent analysis, professor. Only one quibble: I don’t think it matters what the final ballroom looks like. The Trump-haters will hate it no matter what, and Trump defenders will cheer it even if it’s hideous. Are any Obama fans criticizing that incredibly ugly library.
“Democrats have become the party of PROCESS. They think they will be rewarded for studiously adhering to process, and making the process fair, inclusive, union-friendly, LGBTQ positive, environmentally sensitive, and non-polluting, etc etc.”
This is the vaunted European model. as in, “We should be more like the Swedes, etc. Mrs. OB encountered it working in the Netherlands. Nothing gets done but everyone has their say and everyone can go home happy and come back the next day and do it all over again. Of course, this has led to other curious things such as Europeans thinking they have a vote in the U.S. presidential election.
Speaking of process: I think the adage ” A camel is a horse designed by a committee” is fitting here. Also, “technically” just means one wishes it had been done differently, in spite of the fact that it was done in compliance with existing rules. So taking the allowed option of acting unilaterally gives the best potential of getting the best outcome on time. In my opinion. When put in command, command.
Consensus building is the process by which many justify getting paid to make decisions which takes just long enough to forget the original intent or to begin work on a new consensus building project. By choosing the path of least resistance to get to consensus nothing of material consequence occurs and no one ever needs to be held accountable. Consensus building is often found in publicly funded organizations.
People need to remember that the Trump team turned the old Post Office in DC into a high value asset for the city. We are not dealing with an inexperienced DIYer.
Great essay, and excellent comments. But John Tyler was our President from 1841-1845, not 1816-1821.
Oh, bugger. I hate dates. I don’t know how I made that stupid mistake. Fixed.
Well said.
One question.. what assurance do we have from hereon that other parts of the complex won’t be treated similarly now the President has set the Precedent?
Trump’s ballroom serves the country as an elegant and functional facility for national and international events, reflecting well on the nation, and is being acquired for free. It’s not a shoutout to a ghetto Chicago playground. If Obama had built it, the same current whiners would have been gushing over his practicality and foresight.
But yeah, let’s keep hosting state functions in a circus tent with porta-potties, rather than replacing a crappy 20th century addition with a free suitable facility…because “Trump!“.
I just told Mr. Golden this. If it were Obama, we’d be getting gushing spreads on what an elegant, sophisticated and useful ballroom we were getting. This is just more “Because it’s Trump” hand-wringing.
“Once the East Wing had been leveled for the expansion, what were critics going to so? Impeach him?”
This makes me laugh. Previous Presidents may have feared impeachment (and none for renovation projects). Trump doesn’t fear it at all. Been there, done that.
That’s the legacy Democrats have made during the Trump years. Impeachment means nothing.
Argh! Another typo! “So” instead of “do”! Fixed….
Trump could not let up the chance to do a classic trolling of his critics when presenting a timeline for the history of the White House on its official website.
I do feel nostalgic for the days when we didn’t have a president with the emotional maturity of a toddler, the insecurities of a junior homecoming queen runner up, the vindictiveness and civility of a mobster, and the impulse control of an internet troll. FDR treated Hoover like a former president–with respect. All presidents have. Obama treated Trump like a respected incoming president on his inauguration in 2017. Trump refused to even meet with Biden in 2021, didn’t even attend. Putting Hunter Biden’s face up as if it were certain the cocaine found at the WH were his, and as if that were a significant historical development in the White House’s structural history, it’s just epic in its childishness. Ditto for the Lewinsky reference, the trans woman flashing her boobs on the lawn, etc. It’s all of a piece with this man’s gaping hole in his psyche.
“Obama treated Trump like a respected incoming president on his inauguration in 2017.”
Surely you jest. Obama greeted Trump with Crossfire Hurricane and Comey and Brennan and all the rest of the swamp creatures. And then Biden unleashed and coordinated countless federal and state prosecutions after 2020.
Ridiculous.
Obama had nothing to do with Crossfire Hurricane. There was the traditional strong wall between DOJ and the White House. No evidence, not a scintilla, has emerged that Obama was consulted about the decision to launch that investigation. I was referring to the way Obama treated Trump from the moment of his election all the way to January 20th. He told Democrats to be calm, that elections go different ways, and it was time for America to come together. He welcomed Trump and Melania to the White House with class. Compare that to how Trump treated Biden in 2020-1? It just shows you how little class, civility, patriotism, maturity, ability to admit defeat, kindness Trump has, and how much Obama has.
All true. Although many Presidents were capable of equal pettiness and vindictiveness, they had the sense, pragmatism and self-control to not flaunt it. Without doing any extra research, I’d tag Adams, Jackson, A. Johnson, TR, FDR, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, and Clinton. Yet therein lies Trump’s appeal. He doesn’t hide who he is, and in this era of mass media, spin, PR consultants and AI, that adds to public trust rather than subtracts from it. Maybe Teddy comes the closest to a POTUS who was willing to “let it all hang out,” and people loved him for it.
I think I’ve read books on all those presidents, plus too many on Trump. I don’t think you find that level of pettiness and cruelty in ANY of them, not even Nixon with his enemies list. Even in their private lives, they weren’t as fixed on the “must destroy” enemies the way Trump is. I agree that other presidents had an ability to be on person in private, and something different in public…but it doesn’t account for all the difference in cruelty between Trump and other presidents. He has stood out for that trait his whole life, even bragging about how he enjoys getting revenge on his enemies, getting payback. He deliberately used the word ENJOY. And this was before his presidency or even his political career. Or, to take another example–he advocated for the death penalty for the Central Park 5, back when most of NYC assumed they were guilty. OK, no problem, much of NYC would have probably pulled the switch to off them back then. BUT–after they were vindicated, fully, he still wanted them killed. Or when he advocated for cops to be rougher on suspects. There’s just a cruelty streak in him that we’ve never seen before in a modern president at least (Andrew Jackson probably comes closest). It may make him authentic in some eyes. It doesn’t make him admirable in mine. (and, yes, I’m aware that the Central Park 5 involves another grave weakness in Trump–the absolute inability to admit error. His defects are so manifold it is hard to analyze them in isolation.) You also see that lashing out when he raped his first wife–it was HER FAULT the hair plugs were so painful, and he needed payback. She had to suffer…Or indeed, in his general attitude towards raping women. I’m sure we have had other rapists as presidents, but I don’t think we’ve had presidents caught on tape relishing sexual assault as a fun thing to do? Nor do I think the absence of such a tape recorder is why we don’t have Teddy Roosevelt bragging about his sexual assaults.
Sorry, Kazoo. I’ll see you and rais you in two words: Bill Clinton. Or maybe three words: William Jefferson Clinton.
The paradigm of everything awful about my generation.
I think Trump’s multiple accusers of non-consensual sex wildly outnumber Clinton’s three (Jones, Wiley, Broderick). Several, but not all, of Trump’s accusers have more evidence than any of Clinton’s. Then, there’s the psychological evidence. Even before Trump appeared, I was skeptical of Clinton’s accusers, not because I was a Democrat (I wasn’t) but because I had read so many biographies and profiles of Clinton. His epic promiscuity came from a deep need to feel wanted by women, to have their support/acceptance. It was not the same MO as Trump’s sexual promiscuity. Trump sees women as trophies. Clinton sees women as conquests of his charisma and charm. Consent is part of the game, for him. This is not to say that Trump is addicted to non-consent, just to say that consent is optional for him. He got it from both the adult stars he pursued. Which is, in itself, revealing. Can you find adult film stars in Clinton’s LONG list of conquests? He certainly could’ve. But none are there. Because the consent of a prostitute is a given. they can’t give you the kind of psychic and physical validation that a needy philanderer like Clinton requires. For the dominating, trophy kind that Trump was, it doesn’t matter. It’s about their beauty and youth. By having younger and more beautiful women, trump demonstrates his power and dominance. He puts down OTHER men’s wives as ugly, old, bitches, as a way of putting down them. Have you EVER read about Clinton doing that? Not one time to my knowledge.
“Clinton’s three (Jones, Wiley, Broderick).“
By my count, Clinton’s…um…dalliances appear to be a few more than three (3).
Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky, Eileen Wellstone, Sandra Allen James, Christy Zercher, 22 Year-Old Yale Student, Paula Jones, Connie Hamzy, Juanita Broaddrick, Elizabeth (Ward) Gracen, Dolly Kyle Browning, Sally Perdue, Lencola Sullivan, Elizabeth Ward, Susie Whitacre, Bobbie Ann William
*Gennifer Flowers-extramarital affair
*Monica Lewinsky-Blue Dress laundry problem
*Eileen Wellstone- Sexual Assault
*Sandra Allen James- Sexual Assault
*Christy Zercher- Sexual Assault
*22 Year-Old Yale Student – Sexual Assault
*Paula Jones – Sexual Harrassment,. Character Assassination
*Connie Hamzy – Sexual Harassment.
*Juanita Broaddrick- Rape
*Elizabeth (Ward) Gracen – Extramarital One night stand
*Dolly Kyle Browning – Extramarital Affair in 1992
*Sally Perdue – Extramarital Affair
*Lencola Sullivan – Extramarital Affair
*Susie Whitacre – Extramarital Office Affair
*Bobbie Ann William – Extramarital Affair
PWS
Much of that was new to me. A quick google says that my knowledge of Clinton’s alleged assaults is out of date. I very much doubt that with this much smoke, there’s no fire. I retract my assertion that Clinton was demonstrably less of an assaulter than Trump.
We both know that had videos or tapes been available and running, Harding, JFK, LBJ, and Clinton, at very least, engaged in locker room-style boasting about sexual conquests. I’d view that as by far the least damning and off the Presidential reservation of Trump’s indiscretions.
Harding, JFK, LBJ–I don’t know of a single accusation of rape. Seriously. Harding wasn’t even that promiscuous, having I think two long term mistresses? I deal with Clinton’s 3 accusations above. There are MANY tapes of LBJ, sometimes saying quite profane things, but I think he was too much of a gentleman (and in an odd way, a gentle man, read the Caro biography) to ever force himself on a woman. LBJ is like Trump in a couple ways–both men were tremendously self-centered, to the point of narcissism. There’s the great story where LBJ was supposed to get on a certain helicopter, got on the wrong one, and the nervous Marine said “Mr. President, this isn’t your helicopter” “Son, they’re all my helicopters.” And both men sought to dominate other men. But–LBJ was able to submit to other men during his long rise to power. He learned about power by first impressing his father, then the president of his college, then FDR, then Russell, with other mentors along the way. He became master of the Senate by mastering the psychology of relationships in politics. LBJ was a successful legislator before he became a leader in the Senate, and he even wasn’t a terrible VP. Imagine Trump as a VP to ANYONE. The only person he ever submitted to for any length of time was his father and very quickly, that turned into a relationship where Fred was helping Trump. In any case, I don’t know of any allegation of rape. Or even the kind of tawdry sexual impropriety that Trump himself admitted to, sneaking into the dressing rooms of teenage beauty queens, trying to see the tits and asses of children. He’s on tape admitting to that, too. Don’t smear other presidents to try and normalize the violation of the sexual privacy of children. Most presidents, maybe all presidents, wouldn’t do that. Trump did.
Somewhere on Ethics Alarms is the account of a woman who wrote a tell-all book about JFK using her as a forced object of sexual gratification for his friends; I’ll track it down when I have more time. I find it credible, which doesn’t mean it’s true. I am persuaded that Grover Cleveland raped the woman who bore his illegitimate son….that’s also somewhere on the blog. Jefferson, of course, but then we’re getting into the legal high weeds.
It would not shock or disillusion me if it were shown conclusively that Trump were the worst of the worst in this respect, but in a very unusual group of 45, spanning several centuries with moving standards of male privilege and subjugation of women, including many very wealthy, powerful, Alpha, frequently narcissistic, sociopathic men who tended to make their own rules (and who had male role models who did the same) AND whose misconduct was covered up as often as not by sycophants and hagiographers, I can’t make that call at this point.
Very sophisticated point. It gets harder and harder to apply modern morality to presidents as they recede in time. Comparisons become that much harder. I don’t know the JFK story, and I agree that it strikes me as credible. JFK’s philandering was also epic, like Clinton’s but more about a competition with his father. His father took a mistress on their family vacations, hit on JFK’s teenage dates at the house, in front of JFK, and taught his son that one of the great things about being rich was you could pursue women recklessly. Fred did NOT teach that to Donald. He picked it up on his own. Prodigies come in all varieties.
“Prodigies come in all varieties.” And boy, are Presidential biographies a lesson in THAT…
Do you recall this story about FDR humiliating Joe Kennedy?
I am surprised to hear that Joe Kennedy agreed to this.
President Lyndon B Johnson also had weird ways to show that he as President was above the rules:
https://historyfacts.com/famous-figures/fact/lyndon-b-johnson-liked-to-conduct-meetings-in-the-bathroom/
Wow! Never heard it! What a tale! My favorite biography of FDR has several such stories of his domination of underlings (this is the two volume one by Geoffrey Ward) but it missed this one. This is similar to how LBJ embarrassed JFK holdovers by inviting them to swim naked with him in the WH pool. LBJ, confident in his own manhood, made it a test of who was embarrassed of his pecker. He also made a habit of DEFECATING while dictating to his close aides. Making other men smell his feces was about domination for LBJ. Give Trump his due–there’s nothing remotely as physically crude in his domination of his staff.
I think that approaches a record for “faint praise.”
I have not yet begun to faint praise! Don’t award until December at least.
Most appropriate. Thanks for the reminder.
To me it feels like years have passed by since January, but we still get 3 years and two months more of this content.
Why is the White House like tight pants and a cheap hotel?
No ballroom…
PWS
The people who did their best to topple all of America’s monuments to its past and very likely had no idea the White House even had an east wing are the very last ones who should be pretending that the inadequate East Wing of the White House is suddenly the single piece of American property that is its most important landmark that must be preserved at all costs.
He has time to build an East wing, but no time to end the government shut down.
What a dumb thing to say. No “time” is needed to end the shutdown. One party is unilaterally holding the people dependent on the government as hostages to grandstand against Trump and demand to to waste money for objectives that were already rejected by the House and Senate. The President’s job is to say “Bite me!” until the Democrats admit defeat. He’s doing that very well.
As apparently you have time to comment here, but not to look up the meaning of the term “non-sequitur”.