President Trump is an eager risk taker, glorifying it and glorified in it. That explains why he decided to have his name affixed on the Kennedy Center. He could have named the White House the Trump House as it has nobody’s name on it. That would have been easier, but that would not be as challenging.
The Trump name was already all over the country even in the Sin City in the dessert. By insisting on having his name on a building with a prominent name on it without giving a rationale as to why it should be done, he would test the loyalty of MAGA. There was a big risk that they would find their right mind and resisted his order. They have done a lot of things in his name such as chasing the immigrants to the borders, wrestling democratic members of Congress to the ground to eat dirt, or making life of a Muslim member of Congress unbearably difficult. But they love doing them and not necessary because of him. Putting his name on the Kennedy Center building was where loyalty to him, and him alone, must exhibit. It was a bizarre decision but if members of the Kennedy Center Board voted unanimously to approve it, that meant they, and MAGA by extension, were absolutely loyal to him even when the vote involved possibly illegal matter because it was not unauthorized by Congress.
One stone killed two birds. That naming decision would also cause uproar everywhere. To dismiss the uproar and overcome the colossal objection, from the Democrats for sure and the courts, would be a gratifying triumph and a display of power worth taking the risk.
But risk taking, by definition, regardless of how carefully being researched and planned, carries risk. Many successful financiers have taken risk and lost big, Stanley Druckenmiller ($600M), Mat Ishbia ($603M), Bill Hwang ($20B) and that proves the point.
In politics, there is something more important than just succeeding in a bet, something all politicians have conscientiously pursued: Legacy. Unlike legacy in finance or money making, political legacy commands more respect and lasts much longer. Nowadays, when the name Morgan comes up, people think of it as a bank, not John Pierpont. That name could conceivably disappear if the bank were absorbed by another bank, say, Russia’s Sberbank. But the public recognizes the names of Lincoln, Washington, Reagan, or Kennedy, and knows the persons, not the institutions, being behind those names. And these names, in all probability, don’t ever disappear.
The president should not care about MAGA or the Republican Party. Not anymore. They would blame him for the tattered state of the party anyway. He should pay attention to what is most urgent for him as he has only two years to achieve: to build his political legacy.
Since the president keeps working on other things, rallying for the losing candidates for example, that does not seem to help build his legacy, it is safe to assume that nobody has brought to his attention that notion, the notion of Lasting Political Legacy. Or they did but the notion did not go through his ears.
That is where you, Natalie Harp, will play a crucial role: to convince the President to get out of that nightmare that too many people go after him and he must be on guards 24/7 to snuff out perceived enemies. There are a lot of things he can do during his remaining term to build up his legacy and make it definitely positive.
Making the White House Ballroom into something fantastically beautiful and artistic for the world to admire and tourists to flock over like the Colonnades at Saint Peter Square or the Arc de Triomphe at the Place Charles de Gaule, is one.
Natalie, you have the president’s ears. Drop a few sweet and persuasive words into them to convince him to cement his legacy by naming the Ballroom not Melanie, not Baron, not even Donald, but some name resoundingly memorable.
Such as: Democracy.
Or Liberty.
Better yet, DEI.
P. LE PHONG (This article appears on thelephongjournal.com, X, and Facebook)
