Introducing his two-volume biography of the 34th president of the United States, Stephen Ambrose offered a simple, and accurate, judgment: “Dwight Eisenhower was a great and good man. He was one of the outstanding leaders of the Western world of [the 20th] century.”
He also spent more consecutive time at the center of national and international affairs than any other American of his time: longer than either of the Roosevelts, longer than Henry Stimson, longer than anyone. For 18 years — from the moment in November 1942 when he took command of the Allied Expeditionary Force whose invasion of North Africa began the defeat of Hitler’s Third Reich, until Jan. 20, 1961, when he handed the burden of the presidency to John F. Kennedy — Dwight David Eisenhower was in the cockpit of history. And it made a great difference that he was there.
Advertisement
He was supreme commander of the greatest political-military coalition in history, holding it together despite great centrifugal forces (both political and personal) until that coalition won what Eisenhower memorably called its “crusade in Europe” and the “Thousand-Year Reich” was no more. He led an Ivy League university; he helped forge NATO into one of the instruments that prevented another totalitarian power from dominating Europe; he helped keep the Republican party from drifting into the irrelevance of isolationism. Despite the criticisms of the nation’s high-cultural and journalistic tastemakers, he was a successful (and crafty) president, one of the few two-term chief executives who left the Oval Office a highly popular man. Americans, now and in the future, ought to know that this country can produce men of such accomplishment.
No one will learn any of this, however, from the Eisenhower Memorial that will soon be built in the heart of monumental Washington: unless, that is, Congress moves quickly to force a reconsideration of a historical and aesthetic travesty.
The present Eisenhower Memorial design, by postmodernist Frank Gehry, has virtually nothing to do with the Dwight David Eisenhower of history. Plans call for Ike to be memorialized in sculpture as a barefoot farmboy on the Great Plains: not the great wartime leader; not the soldier-diplomat; not the chief executive of the United States who presided over eight years of peace and prosperity. The Gehry conceit seems both obvious and entirely in tune with the postmodern deconstruction of history: There are no great men; there are no great virtues; there is no great striving; nor is there great accomplishment or great service to others. No one, visiting the Eisenhower Memorial as designed by Frank Gehry, would have the slightest reason to grasp the truth of the man himself, as Stephen Ambrose once described him:
As a soldier, he was, as George C. Marshall said at the end of the war, everything that the U.S. Army hoped for in its finest products — professionally competent, well versed in the history of war, decisive, well disciplined, courageous, dedicated, and popular with his men, his subordinates, and his superiors. His leadership qualities also included a high degree of intelligence, integrity, commitment to basic principles, dignity, organizational genius, tremendous energy, and diplomatic ability. As a man, he was good-looking, considerate of and concerned about others, loyal to friends and family, given to terrible rages (which he learned to control), ambitious, thin-skinned and sensitive to criticism, stubborn and inflexible about his habits, an avid sportsman and sports fan, modest (but never falsely so), almost embarrassingly unsophisticated in his musical, artistic, and literary tastes, intensely curious about people and places, often refreshingly naïve, fun-loving — in short, a wonderful man to know or be around. Nearly everyone who knew him liked him immensely, many — including some of the most powerful men in the world — to the point of adulation.
None of this is conveyed by the sculpture of a barefoot boy on the plains. None of it is conveyed by the other elements in the Gehry design: 80-foot-tall, nondescript cylindrical posts (they can’t even be properly described as pillars) holding up perforated metal “tapestries,” creating what Gehry himself once called a “theater for cars.” But what does a “theater for cars,” or any other kind of postmodernist knock-off of a Fifties drive-in, have to do with creating a memorial to Dwight D. Eisenhower, the supreme Allied commander who planned the invasion of Normandy, the president who ended the Korean War and who proposed “Open Skies” as a means to lower the temperature of the Cold War?
Nothing. And that, one is forced to conclude, is the idea: Visitors will be asked to admire a barefoot boy, one of many from the Kansas plains, not the unique and historic figure the barefoot boy became. No wonder that Eisenhower’s grandchildren now oppose the design of his memorial.
Our architectural culture is on a steady decline. This "monument", if you can call it that, will be an embarassment to future architectural historians who will have to explain or theorize how such an abomination could be inserted into the monumental city of Washington D. C.
"...like those that produced the World War II and Vietnam Veterans Memorials."? The Ike memorial is a travesty. But neither the Vietnam nor WWII memorials promote healthy and just civic memory. And then there is the strange Korean War memorial, with its militarily false diorama. And the even stranger FDR memorial--complete with castors on a "wheelchair." Americans need to back up and think more carefully about what memorials are for. In the meantime, let's put a hold on all memorials.
The realization that Eisenhower was the great man my father, who was in the Army in WWII, thought he was, and not the uncultured simpleton my intellectual friends and acquaintances claimed Eisehower to be was, perhaps, the first step in my leaving behind the liberal beliefs (brainwashing?) of my young manhood. William Buckley and Alexander Solzhenitsyn drove the stake through any remaining doubts I might have had as to who was the villain in the Alger Hiss vs Whitaker Chambers drama, and hence made me a conservative, rather than the fellow-traveling liberal of my college days.
As Nixon once said, "The judgement of history depends on who writes it."
Liberals and the postmodernist/post-American community continue to write their history (that is, propaganda) and teach the next generation of Americans that there was nothing noble, courageous or unique about Eisenhower - he was simply part of that "repressed" period known as the 1950's.
Eisenhower - one of the great American leaders of the 20th Century - deserves better. I agree with Mr. Weigel that this proposed monstrosity is an insult to his memory and should be stopped now.
I asked myself of the model in the photo, "is this anything?". In this project, the left makes themselves feel good by trivializing a truly honorable American.
Notice how the bureaucracy moved fast, in this instance. Very telling.
The gold nugget from this review is the following passage: "The Gehry conceit seems both obvious and entirely in tune with the postmodern deconstruction of history: There are no great men; there are no great virtues; there is no great striving; nor is there great accomplishment or great service to others." To the nihilists, there is nothing great about the human race. Therefore, it's not worth saving. Ike, apparently, was irrelevant because his mission was irrelevant. I am wondering when the masses will finally stand up and oppose the destructive force of "modern" thinking. Gehry is one of the leaders of this cult. Yes, war is an atrocity, but how much more atrocious would the world have become without the bravery and courage of the Allied Forces, led by this NOT-unimportant man? Gehry (whose parents were Polish Jews), so tainted by his absurd philosophy (not to mention his bloated ego), could not thank the man who helped end one of the worst episodes of human history. In the end, and as he has always done, Gehry bilks his subject by making the subject Gehry.
Gehry and his ilk are today's typical fools, deranged egotistical hypocritical lawless fascists who would never tolerate others doing to them what they're doing to Eisenhower, more useful idiots for North Korea.
We must stop this montrosity.
It's even worse than the FDR memorial. One of the critics of Gehry's memorial says that he "reduces stature without reducing scale". That exactly decribes the FDR memorial -- a sprawling thing with no grandeur, no stature. They should bulldoze it into the tidal basin and leave just the nice statue of him sitting in a chair.
This Eisenhower memorial is 100 times worse. What an awful way to memorialize such a unique man. No wonder the president's whole family is against it.
Gehry is addicted to experimentation and was quoted critisizing the Lincoln memorial. He wants to express chaos in his work. Let him do it somewhere else.
I actually love Gehry's work. His stuff is fascinating and often beautiful. There's a lot to admire.
It's also not appropriate for this memorial, or location.
Frankly, I'd be happy enough if there *was no* memorial to Ike in D.C. We don't need another one, certainly nothing to this monstrous scale.
If we must memorialize him, it would be wholly appropriate to make a life-sized statue of him riding in a Jeep, perhaps somewhere near the WWII memorial, and leave it at that. A humble momument to a humble man.
The installations at Ground Zero in New York and at the site of the Flight 93 crash in rural PA were specifically selected to ensure that nothing and noone actually got memorialized.
This non-memorial for Ike sends his nationality and place in history down the memory hole -- just where deconstructing, transnational postmodernists and their political allies would like to send the entire American identity.
But, will congress do anything? The Bush administration orchestrated the junk in PA... not a good sign if we're expecting Republicans to step up and kick this sleeping dog.
Sounds to me like this is another of those "historical" monuments which will turn out to be more of a monument to the ego of the designer than a tribute to the person supposedly being honored.
How about a simple litmus test: When most people look at this thing, will they say "Yes, Ike was a great man and a grreat patriot" or will they say "What the h*ll is that thing?"
Exactly. Well said. It really is that simple. The public did not ask the Eisenhower Memorial Commission or the GSA to "reinvent" what a memorial is. The fact that ALL the Eisenhower grandchildren, who have worked with Gehry through this process, have publicly expressed their distaste is a terrible indictment of the memorial as designed.
Why are we even spending money on a memorial that no one is asking for? Eisenhower and every modern president have a library if you want to experience their historical presidency. Why do I sense that presidents want to memorialize their forerunners so that the favor will be returned to them someday?
All excellent comments above, matching a spot-on article.
I suspect Gehry spends a fair amount of time reading his own press clippings, and his designs have now become memorials to himself and his ego. Time to stop.
I would have to agree with Dave below in his assessment of Gehry's work. His stuff, frankly, is as interesting as anyone working today. Most people, even those with minimal spacial sense, would find it fascinating. Anyone who has ever been involved with monumental construction has to be able to appreciate the engineering, if not the aesthetics. We are NOT assessing a Derrida here, but a brilliant artist, arguably the greatest architect of his time.
That said, and considering that I have NOT seen the project in detail, I think Weigel might make a plausible argument for the inappropriateness of the memorial. Monuments of this type are of a different nature from the wild artistic expressions that characterize Gehry's best work. It just may not translate. Color me agnostic here.
As to the "in" coterie that plans, approves and cheerleads such endeavors, we are only too well aware of their molecular snobbery and elitism. They will attempt (and succeed) in pillorying Mr Weigel as just another right-wing, paleo-philistine.
It should be noted in passing that Gehry is also well-known for having an excellent conservative trait: coming in at or below budget.
Gehry is terrific. I'll concede that he MAY not be right for this project.
GWB, yes some in art and architecture do indeed know aesthetics. However most of them are from outside the artistic establishment. Places like the University of Notre Dame and the Institute of Classical Architecture and Art are some of the few that are training a new generation of artists and architects in real beauty.
The National Civic Art Society however has been working the hardest on restoring aesthetic taste here in DC. Our competition for the the Eisenhower Memorial can be found at www.civicart.org and I think you'd find any one of the winners and commended entries head and shoulders above Gehry's design.
