Live long enough and everything will happen, at some point.
Even bizarre, incomprehensible things, such as Saturday’s Washington Post editorial, “In defense of the White House ballroom.” In short, a defense of, ahem . . . Trump.
The paper began by noting the ballroom was something of a Rorschach test, with Trump’s opponents viewing his actions as “reckless” while his supporters see “a change agent unafraid to decisively take on the status quo.”
But the editors add that “it has become far too difficult to build anything in America,” before concluding: “Trump’s undertaking is a shot across the bow at NIMBYs everywhere.”
Wait. The Post has been virulently, unrelentingly anti-Trump, until it relented last November by not endorsing Democrat Kamala Harris for president. Was that or is this a sign the Post editorially is moving toward Trump? Is this influenced by billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos?
I don’t think so. In this lightning-strike instance, the capital’s premier newspaper is offering non-TDS thought. Believe it or not.
As editorial board explains:
- “Privately, many alumni of the Biden and Obama White Houses acknowledge the long-overdue need for an event space like what Trump is creating.”
- Other presidents have demolished or built onto the White House: Teddy Roosevelt, Truman, Obama, etc.
- “Preservationists express horror that Trump did not submit his plans to their scrutiny, but the truth is that this project would not have gotten done, certainly not during his term, if the president had gone through the traditional review process.”*
For this one shining moment, The Washington Post recognizes that America’s regulatory regime does not work. So broken, in fact, that MAGA must be embraced.
If only for one dance.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
* The editorial also notes that “the White House is exempt from some of the required regulations that other federal buildings must comply with.”
Illustration created with Krea and Firefly
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts
2 replies on “Having a Ball”
The construction of the new ballroom is probably to provide cover for changes to the bunker underneath.
As to the admission of the Post that “the White House is exempt from some of the required regulations that other federal buildings must comply with”, let’s be more precise. No law constrains the Administration in such endeavors when it does not draw upon the General Fund. An Executive Order from President Nixon imposed some constraints, but any subsequent President can rescind such Orders in whole or in part, so in application to the White House, Nixon’s Order was basically moot ab initio.
Congress might attempt to effect such a law, but we should hope for the US Supreme Court (which enjoys similar liberty in what it does with its own facilities) to recognize such laws as unconstitutional. Historically, in other lands at other times, those with control over buildings have literally had roofs removed to compel desired behaviors.
Of course a President ought to consult respectable persons before making major modifications to the White House; but almost no one in Congress is deserving of respect.
Finally, let me predict that, if the Democrats recapture the Presidency, then they’ll change the furnishings of the ballroom, under the direction of someone of a fashionably privileged group, and the Democrats and their toad-eaters will claim that these changes effect an almost magical transformation of the ballroom from a symbol of Bad Things to a symbol of Good Things.
WaPo’s change of heart can be attributed to a grudging pragmatism. The ballroom will probably not be completed before Trump’s term ends. His successors will get the benefit of his initiative. WaPo and the NY Times will write many articles extolling the grandeur of this addition when a Democrat occupies the White House and hosts a state dinner.