By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Lincoln Memorial’s design, with its 36 Doric columns and open symmetry, was intentionally crafted to embody Lincoln’s vision of democracy and reconciliation. Its steps, numbering 87, subtly reference the Gettysburg Address and the span between Lincoln’s speech and the Declaration of Independence. Over time, the Memorial has evolved into a powerful symbol, particularly for African Americans, who have used its steps for pivotal moments in the Civil Rights Movement, such as Marian Anderson’s concert and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Despite attempts to overshadow its significance with displays of military power or the planned construction of a large arch, the Lincoln Memorial endures as a testament to liberty and equality.
Read the original article here
The very idea of Donald Trump associating himself with the Lincoln Memorial feels like a profound disrespect to a place that holds such a significant place in the American consciousness. This memorial isn’t just a monument; it’s a sacred civic space, a touchstone that excites reverence for the fundamental ideals of the Declaration of Independence – ideals of equality and liberty. To have this space become a backdrop for a political event, particularly one that feels so incongruous with Lincoln’s legacy, is deeply unsettling. It’s as if the very spirit of the place is being strained by an agenda that doesn’t align with its core principles.
It’s not an isolated incident, but rather part of a pattern where anything touched by Trump seems to be diminished or altered in a way that feels disrespectful. This sense of desecration extends beyond physical spaces, encompassing the very ideas and rhetoric he espouses. The MAGA movement, as some perceive it, has been chipping away at the nation’s civic fabric since its inception. The thought of the Lincoln Memorial being repurposed for a press conference and weigh-ins for a UFC event, even if it’s just a backdrop, is jarring. It juxtaposes the solemnity of the memorial with the commercialism and spectacle of entertainment, creating an uncomfortable dissonance.
One can’t help but feel a sense of dread when considering a president who seems to be in opposition to the egalitarian vision embodied by Lincoln. A monument that stands as a beacon of reverence for the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln himself, and the aspirations for equality that Dr. King championed, is inherently threatening to leaders who do not share that same vision for America. Trump’s repeated presence at the Lincoln Memorial, almost as if trying to assert dominance over it, underscores this perceived conflict. It’s a visual representation of a clash between differing interpretations of what America truly stands for.
The sentiment that Trump desecrates everything he touches is a strong one, and it resonates with the feeling that his presence invariably leads to a degradation of the things he interacts with. This isn’t limited to physical structures; it extends to the very essence of institutions and ideals. His approach, characterized by some as a sort of untrained, disruptive force, seems to leave a trail of disruption and offense. This perception of grossness and desecration is not confined to a single instance but is seen as a consistent output of his actions and influence.
Indeed, the desecration appears to be a broad, sweeping phenomenon. Some feel he is desecrating the entire United States, or even the world. For those who believe in the concept of an Antichrist, Trump fits that narrative, embodying a force that seems antithetical to positive societal progress. This idea of treasonous desecration, of defecating on everything he gets his hands on, speaks to a profound level of damage and disrespect felt by critics. It’s not just about political disagreements; it’s about a perceived assault on the nation’s foundations.
This isn’t merely about the Lincoln Memorial; it’s part of a larger history of perceived transgressions. The argument is that he has already dismantled aspects of traditional governance and symbolic spaces, such as altering the White House lawn’s usage or dictating content in public parks. The removal of names of Black veterans from memorials further fuels this narrative of disrespect and erasure. Given this history, the idea that he would continue to desecrate important places and things, like the Lincoln Memorial, is unfortunately not surprising to many.
The concern is that any place that inspires reverence for the Declaration of Independence, Lincoln, and Dr. King is inherently challenging for presidents who don’t embrace their egalitarian principles. The Lincoln Memorial, with its powerful symbolism, is a direct embodiment of these ideals. Therefore, a president whose vision for America diverges from this egalitarianism would naturally find such a monument to be a point of contention. Trump’s continued engagement with the memorial, in this view, is an attempt to co-opt or diminish its meaning.
The feeling of desecration extends to the very fabric of the country and its history. It’s argued that he has desecrated the entire nation, including those who died defending it, those whose lives were negatively impacted by his actions, and the legacy for future generations. This broad interpretation of desecration suggests a fundamental damage to the collective identity and historical narrative of the United States. His legacy, in this context, is seen as one of profound and far-reaching disrespect.
The idea that this is acceptable because it’s “his private property” is a critique aimed at the supporters who might defend such actions. This perspective implies a disconnect from the understanding that national monuments are not personal possessions but belong to the collective citizenry. The frustration is amplified when political figures seem to act as if they have unchecked ownership over public spaces and symbols, particularly those that hold deep historical and emotional significance.
It’s understandable why the use of the Lincoln Memorial as a backdrop for events that seem to mock or undermine its inherent values would be viewed as an outrage. The question of “what can you do?” reflects a sense of powerlessness in the face of perceived transgressions against civic symbols. While some might find the idea of worshipping political figures to be inherently problematic, the specific issue here is the perceived disrespect shown to a monument that represents foundational American ideals.
The argument that the desecration lies in the mere fact that the memorial is existing in the background of a less-than-reverent event highlights a concern about the trivialization of important symbols. Reducing a space that inspires awe and reflection to a mere visual prop for a spectacle is seen as a waste of its significance. This perspective suggests that the context in which these memorials are used is as important as their physical preservation.
The act of using national treasures as backdrops for events that seem to lack gravitas or respect is inherently classless and tacky, especially when borne out of taxpayer funds. The “Mierdas Touch,” as some might sarcastically call it, suggests a talent for turning positive or neutral things into something negative or offensive. It’s as if the very presence or involvement of certain individuals guarantees a reduction in quality or dignity.
The repetition of certain points or phrases in discussions about this topic can indicate a shared frustration and a desire to emphasize the severity of the perceived disrespect. The confusion over names like “Pope” and architects also highlights a desire for clarity and accuracy when discussing historical and civic sites, further underscoring the importance placed on these places. The clickbait nature of some headlines or descriptions can also be frustrating, creating expectations of a major transgression that might not be fully met, but the underlying sentiment of disapproval remains.