Rep. Jonathan Jackson compared construction projects and changes to museum displays with military action and deadly confrontations, turning a legitimate policy debate into another exercise in political overstatement.
By Lucretia Hughes Klucken
WASHINGTON — Americans have heard nearly every accusation imaginable directed at President Donald Trump.
He has been called a dictator, a fascist, a threat to democracy and an enemy of history.
Now, according to one Democratic congressman, renovating government buildings and challenging political messaging inside the Smithsonian amount to “acts of violence.”
Oh, come on.
Rep. Jonathan Jackson, D-Ill., made the statement Thursday during a news conference with Democratic Reps. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico and Kweisi Mfume of Maryland.
The lawmakers gathered to announce the Smithsonian Integrity Act, legislation intended to limit the Trump administration’s ability to change museum exhibits or remove materials Democrats believe should remain on display.
The dispute involves serious questions about presidential authority, historical accuracy, public property and whether any administration should determine how America’s past is presented.
Those questions deserve a serious debate.
Calling renovation work and museum policy “violence” is not serious.
Jackson began by accusing Trump and his administration of having an inclination toward violence.
“The president’s proclivity, his inclination in this administration is towards violence,” Jackson said.
He then applied that language to construction projects around Washington.
“You’ve seen the violence on the buildings of the East Wing,” Jackson said, before referring to work involving the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.
Jackson broadened the comparison to include military operations overseas, immigration enforcement and the administration’s dispute with the Smithsonian.
“This is an act of violence, of going into the museum and trying to replace truth with lies,” he said.
Renovating a building is not the same as bombing a target.
Installing a sign outside a museum is not the same as a military strike.
Arguing over an exhibit is not the same as physical violence against another human being.
Words have meaning.
When elected officials use the word “violence” to describe every policy decision they dislike, they weaken the word and make it more difficult to describe actual violence when it occurs.
America has experienced real political violence. Families have buried loved ones. Police officers and civilians have been assaulted. Communities have been torn apart by riots, shootings and terrorism.
A construction crane is not an act of violence.
A renovation contract is not a weapon.
A disagreement over a museum placard is not an attack on a human body.
Jackson’s language came as Democrats escalated their opposition to Trump’s efforts to reshape several Washington institutions and landmarks.
Critics accuse the president of pursuing vanity projects, bypassing preservation requirements and attempting to attach his name and political legacy to nationally significant buildings.
Those concerns are not entirely invented.
Courts have questioned portions of the administration’s plans for the Kennedy Center. A federal judge ruled that adding Trump’s name to the building required congressional approval and restricted the administration’s ability to close or alter the center without following legal procedures.
Democrats have also questioned contracting practices surrounding White House and National Mall projects.
According to CBS News, lawmakers have raised concerns about no-bid contracts, private donors and possible conflicts of interest.
Those are appropriate subjects for congressional oversight.
Congress may investigate contracts. Preservation groups may challenge construction plans. Courts may determine whether the executive branch exceeded its authority.
That is how constitutional government works.
But when the argument becomes “violence against buildings,” the policy debate disappears beneath another pile of political theatrics.
Buildings cannot be assaulted in the same sense as people.
They can be damaged, demolished, altered or neglected. If Jackson believes the administration is unlawfully damaging federal property, he should identify the statute, produce the evidence and make the legal case.
If he believes a renovation violates preservation law, he should point to the requirement being ignored.
If he believes a contract is corrupt, Congress should investigate the money.
Calling it violence may produce a viral video. It does not prove wrongdoing.
The dispute over the Smithsonian is equally heated.
Trump has accused the institution of promoting politically slanted interpretations of American history, emphasizing the nation’s failures while minimizing its achievements.
The administration has proposed temporary signs outside certain exhibits informing visitors that displays may reflect the personal viewpoints of museum curators.
The White House also released a lengthy report accusing the National Museum of American History of allowing activism and ideological messaging to influence exhibits.
Critics say Trump is attempting to rewrite history, intimidate historians and remove material dealing with slavery, race, immigration and LGBTQ issues.
Supporters argue that publicly financed museums should not present progressive political claims as unquestionable historical truth.
Both positions can be examined without pretending the museum is under physical attack.
The Smithsonian is supported heavily by American taxpayers. The public therefore has every right to ask whether its exhibits are accurate, balanced and appropriate.
Historians should be free to present uncomfortable facts about slavery, discrimination, war and government failure.
They should also present America’s founding principles, achievements, sacrifices and progress without treating patriotism as an embarrassment.
Honest history does not require propaganda from the left or the right.
It requires evidence.
The proposed Smithsonian Integrity Act would reportedly restrict the executive branch’s ability to remove or alter exhibits and would create additional safeguards for museum content.
Supporters say those protections are necessary to prevent political censorship.
Opponents may reasonably ask whether the bill would instead protect an entrenched ideological bureaucracy from public accountability.
That is the debate Congress should have.
Who determines what goes into a taxpayer-supported museum? What authority belongs to the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents? What role should Congress and the executive branch play? What standards protect both historical accuracy and institutional independence?
Those questions matter.
Political melodrama does not answer them.
Jackson was not alone in escalating the rhetoric.
At the news conference, Stansbury described Trump as a “lonely, bitter” and potentially “mentally compromised individual” who becomes unpredictable when left “unsupervised.”
That is not oversight. It is a personal attack delivered in front of cameras.
Democrats once argued that inflammatory rhetoric from political leaders could create danger. They demanded civility and warned that reckless language had consequences.
Those standards should not disappear simply because Trump is the target.
If words matter, they matter when Democrats use them too.
The constant inflation of political language has created a country in which every disagreement becomes a constitutional crisis, every renovation becomes violence and every election becomes the last chance to save democracy.
Americans are exhausted.
They want facts.
They want to know how much these projects cost, who is paying for them, whether contracts were legally awarded and whether historic structures are being protected.
They also want museums that tell the full American story rather than filtering history through the political fashion of the moment.
Those expectations are not radical.
Trump’s administration should disclose project costs, contracts and preservation reviews. It should explain every proposed Smithsonian change and allow the public to judge whether the revisions improve accuracy or impose a different political narrative.
Democrats should provide evidence for their objections instead of reaching for the most explosive word available.
Opposition is not automatically courage. Outrage is not automatically truth. Volume is not evidence.
If a federal building has been unlawfully damaged, investigate it.
If taxpayer money has been misused, expose it.
If museum history has been falsified, correct it.
But spare the American people the claim that a renovation is the political equivalent of physical violence.
That is not accountability.
That is theater.
And at a moment when the nation faces actual violence at home and serious military dangers abroad, Congress should know the difference.
Sources: RVM News transcript and video summary; CBS News reporting on congressional criticism of Trump’s construction projects; ABC News report on the Smithsonian dispute; Associated Press reporting on the Kennedy Center litigation.
Original article
Comments