“The boycott, which is taking hold because D.C.’s arts patrons are overwhelmingly wealthy, woke Democrats, is certain to have negative effect on audiences and artists. The National Symphony Orchestra, to name one boycott target, is hanging by a thread financially already. It has no other venue open to it. But the boycotters literally don’t care. Their aim is to grandstand, signal their virtue, and declare their intractable opposition to the elected President of the United States. Artists are also engaging in this destructive and illogical protest. The Cookers, an “all-star jazz septet that will ignite the Terrace Theater stage with fire and soul” and a New York dance company canceled scheduled appearances at the Kennedy Center on New Years Eve, so as with the annual Christmas Eve jazz concert hosted by Chuck Redd that also canceled at the last minute, audiences looking forward to the event are being punished as proxies for the hated POTUS.
“How these protests have any impact on President Trump has yet to be explained…I would love to be in a debate with these self-righteous jackasses. When did the name of a building or theater have any substantive effect on what went on within it? Ethics Alarms has taken a clear stance regarding Trump’s politically inept willingness to have his name stamped on the building, but the hypocrisy of these “moral” protesters is spectacular. Has any artist since the Center was opened expressed qualms about performing in a venue honoring a serial adulterer, a President who jeopardized American interests by having sexual liaisons with a foreign spy and mob boss’s mistress, and who has been credibly accused of Epstein-like sex abuses by alleged victims? Trump is a narcissist, but JFK was a sociopath…”
In response to the legal reversal, which he had to expect, Trump wrote on Truth Social, “Unless I am free to do what I do better than anyone else, bring this Institution back, physically, financially, and artistically, I have no interest in continuing what could only be a hopeless journey.” Translation: “So go ahead, assholes. Here’s your cherished theater venue (that no one without a trust fund can afford to attend), and much good may it do you. You fix it. You hold all of your little woke club meetings of musicians and actors for your all-white audiences. You continue to host pilgrimages to the gaudy, overblown mausoleum to perpetuate the Camelot myth, and worship at the neck of that giant JFK bust…
… that looks like it was fashioned out of chewing gum.”
“I’m out.”
The Washington Post, being ridiculous as usual, actually wrote, “Trump has made the planned overhaul of the cultural center a priority for his second term.” A priority? Seriously? It was an afterthought at most. A hobby, maybe. The vast, vast majority of the American public doesn’t think about the Kennedy Center even once a year. Only a sliver of a sliver of a percentage point of Americans have ever seen a performance there. My deranged anti-Trump lawyer friends keep saying that the President defies court orders (he doesn’t), so how will they explain it when he doesn’t defy this one? (It’s a well-reasoned opinion, incidentally.) Will the “No Kings” nutballs now rejoice that they stopped Trump from making monuments to himself, like Seti the Great? They won! Whoopee!
The inhabitants of other more troubled nations must marvel at one that has the time and luxury to be incensed over the name on a building.
Ethics Alarms 
I recall Nancy Pelosi holding up the first bill to send out COVID checks to all of the people taking unpaid leave for the “two weeks to stop the spread” effort in March of 2020 until the bill included $25 million for the Kennedy Center.
(Imagine all of the homeless veterans who could’ve been helped by $25 million for a place none of us will ever set foot in.)
Reading up on it a bit, it seems the center has been plagued (Can it be called “plagued” when it’s intentional?) for years with the same sort of bloated staffing, unionization, and expenses as similar venues like the Metropolitan Opera.
Sounds like shutting it down for a while and cleaning house would be a reasonable endeavor no matter whose name is on the building. One could well question (as you did) the logic in even having the government operating such an enterprise that only accessible by, and serves, almost nobody beyond a tiny portion of the “elites”, unlike, say, the Smithsonian.
The thing should probably be privatized. Any number of entertainment venues survive entirely or mainly as commercial enterprises with revenues sometimes supplemented by corporate sponsors, selling naming rights, sports teams, etc., and serve wide swaths of the public.
After reading this a few times I was wondering what the main point you want people to take away from this post?
That what name is on the complex is, ultimately, meaningless. That a bigger deal was made of the thing because of anti-Trump hysteria. That it was a foolish and obnoxious and needlessly provocative move for Trump to add his name to what is basically a Kennedy family monument. That a court overturning the decision was inevitable, but again, a waste of time, expense and energy. That the artists who boycotted a venue because they hate Trump were only hurting their patrons. That Trump is hardly a culture fan, so this was so far down his list of priorities that the decision doesn’t even qualify as a slapdown, and anyone cheering it needs to get a life.
Pick one.
OR, you can settle on this: when I write about a developing ethics related incident, I will try to report when there is a new development or resolution.
Thank you. I wanted to push back on your points.
I’m not sure I buy your first argument. If the name is meaningless why did Trump need it on the building? You can’t argue the name is meaningless and then say it was meaningful enough for Trump to demand it as a condition of his help. If it truly didn’t matter, Trump should have been the easiest person to drop it. He could have also helped the center without his name or getting something in return
on point 2 the The bigger deal was made by a federal judge citing separation of powers. You can’t dismiss a constitutional ruling as a symptom of derangement. Ya know, the ruling wasn’t made by hysterical critics but by a federal judge, in a written opinion, citing separation of powers doctrine.
If you admit the original act by Trump was foolish, obnoxious, etc… so you’ve admitted what followed was mostly justified . You’re not being consistent here in your argument.
Also, the suit was inevitable because the action was illegal. Courts correcting illegal acts is what they’re there for! “Predictably unconstitutional therefore not worth addressing” sounds like an argument for ignoring executive overreach.
Boycotting artists only hurt their patrons… agreed, stupid.
Trump not caring…I dont buy that either…he posted about it immediately. And even if he didn’t, a president being stopped from exceeding his constitutional authority matters regardless of his emotional investment in the outcome.
My main confusion on this post, and why I asked you what your point was, is that you call the renaming “foolish, obnoxious, and needlessly provocative” but then attack people who agreed with you.
It feels like you want to be right about Trump’s mistake while making sure nobody else gets to be right about it too. It’s just a confusing post…since it’s a important legal story you argue it doesn’t matter, but the authority of Congress being protected by the court def matters
I think this is why the post was so confusing to me it was hard to follow your logic…we can’t fault people for refusing to accept an illegal act just because it might have been more convenient or beneficial to the center.
Thanks for the push back. That’s what I like, when it is substantive.
1. Trump didn’t “need it.” He does this kind of thing to troll his critics and haters, to show he can, to drive people crazy. And fore revenge: the KC treated him and Melania like dirt in his first term. It’s like taking out the trash to him.
2.I didn’t criticize the judge or the ruling.
3. Justified but wildly overblown, even sillier than the ballroom kerfuffle.
4. “Also, the suit was inevitable because the action was illegal.” Now a judge has said it was illegal. The language of the applicable law was arguably ambiguous, and legal experts disagreed. Trump had a colorable argument that he had the power, but ethically, it was wrong. Because you can do something doesn’t make it good or right to do it.
5. Trump posts about all sorts of trivia. That he does a mind dump about something is not proof that it’s high priority.
6. If a Democratic President had done the equivalent, there would have been no suit. The Republicans wouldn’t care, and the Democrats wouldn’t buck Obama. Again: because the name on a theater venue doesn’t affect what’s performed.
7. And you know there would be no boycotts.