“The White House cannot simply be a museum to the past. Like America, it must evolve with the times to maintain its greatness. Strong leaders reject calcification. In that way, Trump’s undertaking is a shot across the bow at NIMBYs everywhere.”
—-The Washington Post editors, in an Editorial not only defending the President’s East Wing overhaul for a long-needed ballroom, but implying that he is a strong leader.
See! I’m smart! I’m not dumb like everyone says! The Post editorial duplicates the arguments I made here. It’s not a particularly ingenious point of view; it should be obvious to anyone capable of thinking through the orange mist of Trump hate.
Writes the Post: “It is absurd that tents need to be erected on the South Lawn for state dinners, and VIPs are forced to use porta-potties. The State Dining Room seats 140. The East Room seats about 200. Trump says the ballroom at the center of his 90,000-square-foot addition will accommodate 999 guests. The next Democratic president will be happy to have this.”
Now watch Post staffers quit in a huff, and laugh as my Facebook friends proclaim that Armageddon is here. The Comments on the Post are a window into the mental wasteland that D.C. Trump Derangement has wrought. The Washington Post actually gives Donald Trump credit for doing the wise, smart, and necessary thing, and these are the first 10 comments I read:
“As the editorial board compares building a backyard deck to a 90,000 sq. ft. ballroom that somehow makes a case for why my government’s needs it, my mind wanders to the past, where serious people wrote for newspapers.”
“Washington Post editorial board, I am embarrassed for you.”
“Hey, Jeff[Bezos]. We see you. How do Trump’s boots taste?”
“DEAR(?} WP EDITORIAL BOARD: According to your editorial, if Trump wants to tear down the White House and replace it with a replica of Mar a Lago, he could proceed without any safeguards. It’s not about whether a larger ballroom is needed but whether there are any controls. According to your editorial, if Trump doesn’t like the style of the Washington Monument, the Capitol building or the Smithsonian buildings, he could redesign them as he likes.“
“Sorry, it’s not his house. What else needs to be said?”
“Wapo won’t let me post what I’d really like to say here so it’s adios, arrivederci, bye-bye WaPo.”
“So how much money is Bezos contributing to the Golden Calf to build this thing? It will dwarf the original White House, and if Trump says it will be “beautiful,” we know what it will look like — he’s already turned the Oval Office into a pre-revolution French whore-house. How many times in a year will any sane president need a ballroom for 1000 people? Why not just built a football stadium on the lawn?”
“I guess Jeff Bezos is looking for an invite to the dance floor.”
“The Billionaires have spoken through this EB opinion. Why does anyone who has obscene levels of money have to wade through regulations or be denied a modern estate in an historic neighborhood? We billionaires shouldn’t have to wait for anything or ask anyone’s permission. We’re rich. That means we’re smarter than everyone else in the room. You with less than us? Your opinion and your rights don’t matter. We, the richest of the rich, have spoken.”
Ethics Alarms 
Oh, my goodness! Those comments leave me speechless.
Donald Trump has one great virtue — making enemies hate him so much that they expose the depths of their mental illness for everyone to see. When that madness is even too much for the WaPo to sign on to, it must be a deep psychosis, indeed.
What continues to baffle me is how anyone can support these mentally diseased people. I saw a Twitter post where Eric Swalwell (I know, but he is an elected Congressman) said that anyone running for the Democratic nomination must pledge to destroy Trump’s addition if they are elected. He later walked that back some, but the post is still up there in all it’s deranged glory.
Wow. Demolish a 300 plus million dollar building in a hissy fit. That will be a great plank on the Dems’ platform for 2028.
I’m guessing the editorial was done following a directive from Jeff Bezos. It’s so rational and completely out of character for the Post. I wonder whether there will be resignations or whether the employment situation for newspaper people is so grim they will just keep their heads down and keep cashing ol’ Jeff’s checks.
I do agree the building will be massive and out of scale. I also find Trump’s gilt appliques stuck onto every slightly empty space on every interior wall off putting. As our architect, a modernist eloquently explained to us, “Sometimes a wall just wants to be a wall.” But he just has a thing for gold.
Wait for it… “The Golden President”
Hopefully Melania will have some input.
As to your last point, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, ¿no? I like surrealism and cubism; my wife thinks they are juvenile and sophomoric. Van Gogh is a favorire of mine. She likes Monet. Neither one of us is right or wrong. Same with architectural. I like the bold colors used in Victorian style houses. My wife likes simple, delicate colors. Neither one of us is right or wrong. They are matters of personal preference and opinion.
The same holds for Trump’s vision for this ballroom. Frankly, I am flummoxed by the amount of cyberink spilled over it. Will it be gauche? Will it be sophisticated? I dunno and I really don’t care. I do think there is a difference between a Manhattan hotel or skyscraper and an extension to the White House. The design should flow and become part of the overall aesthetic of the existing structures and the surrounding areas. What works in a downtown commercial setting may not work in discreet and historical area where the Executve Branch conducts business. I suspect Trump, brash as he is and can be, knows this and cognizant of the White House’s place in history. Most of the pearl clutching is just that – pearl clutching because it is Trump. If Obama had done the same thing, he would be praised for his leadership, his initiative, and his overall righteousness. but, Trump . . .
jvb
Exactly. And this is why people’s personal preferences regarding artistic style doesn’t matter in this case. It’s not about the beauty of the finished product, it’s about opposing Trump.
In other unexpected ethical moments, even Ilhan Omars recognizes that the United States representing a unified front in diplomacy is more important than bashing Donald Trump….
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/respect-president-ilhan-omar-defended-181320319.html