To the Editor:
Now that the Commission of Fine Arts has cleared President Trump’s proposed 250-foot triumphal arch to be erected at Memorial Circle, at the Virginia end of Arlington Memorial Bridge, we should consider what would be lost if the structure is built as planned.
I served my last Navy tour in the United States Capitol, where I was promoted to rear admiral, married and retired. From my office window I looked out on the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial and, beyond them, Arlington National Cemetery. As I approach 80, I sometimes think about the day the view reverses — when I lie in that ground and visitors look back from my grave across the river to those same landmarks.
That sightline is no accident. Arlington Memorial Bridge was built deliberately low to keep open the line between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, a gesture of reunion after the Civil War. An arch more than twice the height of the Lincoln Memorial would sever it. The view itself is a memorial. We should not lose it.
Robert CJ Krasner New York The writer is a retired rear admiral in the Navy medical corps.
To the Editor:
On Nov. 8, 2023, my family was privileged to bury my beloved father-in-law, Webster Page Wodell, in Arlington National Cemetery. Page, as he was known, honorably served his country during World War II, earning the distinguished Navy Cross.
On that beautiful afternoon, his family — a gathering of his children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and stepchildren — met on the Memorial Bridge awaiting to be escorted into Arlington National Cemetery. It is at this site that President Trump proposes to build a towering monument that will loom over the entrance to a sacred place.
I am 83 years old, but will be one of the first to be there in protest if and when the first shovel hits the ground. Patriotism, the love of this wonderful country, should be expressed in our words and deeds, not in a gilded structure.
Nancy Wodell Malvern, Pa.
To the Editor:
The public buildings, parks, monuments and historic spaces in Washington, D.C., do not belong to the president. They belong to the American people.
I am appalled by efforts to reshape these shared spaces in ways that appear driven by one individual’s personal preferences or political agenda rather than by established preservation standards, professional expertise and public input.
Our nation’s capital is not a blank canvas for any administration to leave its personal imprint. These sites reflect our collective history, including its triumphs, contradictions and complexities. Decisions about their appearance and meaning should be made transparently and thoughtfully, with respect for their historical significance and the diverse citizens they represent.
The historic public spaces and monuments of Washington are held in trust for future generations. They should never be treated as personal projects or partisan symbols. Protecting our shared heritage requires humility and stewardship, not ownership.
Maria Duca Philadelphia
The Knicks’ Defining Shot: ‘So Cool, So New York, So Ours’
To the Editor:
Re “Knicks Snap to Life, and Their City Doesn’t Sleep” (front page, June 12):
When I saw the last-second tap-in that won the Knicks a crazy fourth game Wednesday night, my mind didn’t jump back to the glory days of the 1970s. Instead I envisioned the basketball court on Sixth Avenue in the Village.
New York’s own, on our streets, taking the cool last shot.
So cool, so New York, so ours.
Bless ’em.
Linda Schonfeld New York
A Plan for Democrats
To the Editor:
Re “What Would Lincoln Do?,” by Jamelle Bouie (column, June 7):
Mr. Bouie is right: This moment demands more than tinkering on the margins — opposing President Trump is not enough. That is precisely what Project 2029, referred to in the column, is all about.
We are bringing together hundreds of thinkers and leaders to develop a wide-ranging, hopeful vision for what comes next. That vision must include addressing the structural barriers that enable corruption, concentrate power in the hands of the few and undermine the rule of law.
In the coming months, Project 2029 will put forward big ideas that include reforming our courts and the Constitution. But an aspirational vision cannot just be about Senate procedures and the judiciary.
A Pew survey from October found that just 8 percent of Americans say Democrats have “a lot of good ideas.” People are desperate to understand what we are for and how we’re addressing the most pressing challenges we face, from housing to health care to A.I.
So, yes, we need a plan for how “a future Democratic-led government might wield power,” but also a bold set of ideas about what it will do with that power to improve Americans’ lives. That is the mission of Project 2029.
Chad Maisel Washington The writer is the executive director of Project 2029.
U.S. Political Flaws
To the Editor:
Re “The Presidency of Lost Opportunities,” by E.J. Dionne Jr. (Opinion guest essay, May 18):
The United States got where it is because its Constitution and laws assumed that the president would be a good actor and that the separation of powers would keep a potentially bad actor in check. There are glaring failures here. Let me list a few:
Gerrymandering. In what democratic world is it a good idea to let partisan state governments determine electoral boundaries? An independent commission setting boundaries on the basis of population numbers alone is far safer.
A Supreme Court built on partisanship. When would this have ever been a path to fair rulings?
The filibuster. Nothing gets done.
Checks on corruption. This means stronger laws for conduct of everyone in government — and a ruling that, yes, a president can be charged and convicted while in office (beyond impeachment).
A truly independent judiciary in which the Justice Department could be censured and its activities overturned if they smack of serving the president’s whims.
I could go on. As a Canadian, while my country may not be a model, I look at the desperately flawed systems in place in the United States and say, “You get what you let happen.”
William Badke Langley, British Columbia
Vote in Person
To the Editor:
I have voted by mail in recent elections, simply because returning an envelope was slightly more convenient than going to the polling place. But I plan to vote in person in November.
It is apparent that if his party loses, President Trump intends to try to create doubts about the accuracy of the results. He will probably challenge mail-in votes in areas where the vote goes against the Republicans.
Everyone who needs to vote by mail should vote by mail. But if you are like me and have voted by mail simply as a convenience, consider voting in person in November.
The fewer mail-in ballots there are, the better. It will simplify and speed up all of the recounting that looks very likely at this point.
Bruce White St. Paul, Minn.
The post Trump’s Arch Would Mar Hallowed Ground appeared first on New York Times.
