Mount Rushmore currently displays the mugs of four great American Presidents: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt. I believe there is room (literally as well as historically) for two more.
Historians who know a thing-or-two tend to agree that there were three 20th Century US Presidents who truly changed the world. They are: Both Roosevelts, and Ronald Reagan. All three are now dead. One is already on Rushmore. Why not add the other two?
Adding Reagan might be politically difficult, but that difficulty would disappear if the Liberal Lion FDR was thrown into the mix. Add both FDR and RR on this South Dakota monument, I say. They both were great Presidents whose vision and actions have changed the world we live in. Add them both.
I dare a single Congress-critter to vote against such a plan. It would have complete bi-partisan support, I believe.
Ronald Reagan may have finally left us. But his smiling face does not have to fade away from our memories forever. It can be, for all time, etched into the stone of the America he loved so deeply, right next to his political antithesis (FDR).
I support this. Do you?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Steven Rubio
No.
2 - Nyx
Because Clinton should go first.
3 - Natalie Davis
Absolutely not. Some people want that "smiling face" erased from their memory. And adding FDR, well, that's just a hook to get Dems to support carving Ronnie Ray-gun's mug into Rushmore, isn't it?
4 - bhw
Can we just leave the poor fucking mountain alone? It's bad enough as it is. How STOOPID is it to carve the faces of men into a big rock?
I'd think the fiscal conservatives wouldn't want to waste taxpayer money on such a useless thing.
5 - Russell Mann
I'd vote for that. Then again, I don't have to be anywhere near South Dakota on a regular basis.
6 - Shark
Yeah, put the face of some Hollywood actor who played a President on a big rock.
"Mommy, look, it's "Broomface" from Dick Tracy!"
And how about Sainthood?
RJ, you and the gushing Reagan love-fest known as the "liberal media" should start a campaign to get the Pope to crown Ronny a Saint.
Patron Saint of Jellybeans?
Patron Saint of the Business Power Nap?
Patron Saint of Memory Loss?
I say it should be "Patron Saint of Record Deficits" --- no, wait, W. Bush is in line for that one. Nevermind.
And have you thought about further fucking up the mall in Washington DC (see Albert Speer's design for the new WWII monument) and maybe adding a giant bronze horse with the Gipper in a cowboy hat?
RJ, how about you provide a personal tribute to your favorite mythological-political being?
You can show what a good little conservative robot you are -- and at the same time -- prove what big balls you have: get a big Reagan tattoo.
Seriously man. Show yer serious.
7 - Shark
Doh!
Just saw that there REALLY IS a group that wants yet another friggin' "monument" on the once-beautiful mall in DC.
It seems a library, an airport, and Mt. Rushmore aren't quite enough 'reminders'.
mmm. Dead white Republicans in bronze. I kinda like that idea.
But do they have to be dead first?
Geooooooorrrrrrrrggggeee...
8 - Winston Smith
Shark,
Don't forget the office building and the aircraft carrier. And don't forget that Grover Norquist and his crew of nuts are trying to get Reagan on the $10 bill...AND trying to get a Reagan monument of some kind (high school named after him or whatever) in EVERY COUNTY IN THE COUNTRY.
These people are lunatics.
9 - Michael Croft
I'm not sure you'll get agreement on that for RWR on Borglum's Folly. However, it would be nicely symbolic if while blowing stuff up to promote Reagan, they managed to damage FDR...
10 - Mac Diva
I have a better idea. Relics. Yes, relics. Parts of Ronald Reagan's body should be sold to the highest bidder. eBay could handle the bidding. That way, the millions of people expressing their deeply felt love for this departed politician could put their money where their mouth is. They would have a piece of the man who called his wife Mommy forever. Since the relics would be held in private hands (preferably after being properly preserved) and shown only to those interested in them, persons who have no fond memories of Reagan or his policies would have no reason to be offended.
But, it would not be fair, you say. Donald Trump, that guy from Enron, and Dick Cheney's chums at Halliburton would snag all the good stuff. George W. himself would pony up the moolah for both testicles. Not necessarily so. Poor and middle-class Republicans (you'd be surprised how many there are) could form collectives and bid as groups. So, there it is. The perfect way for those who love Ronald Reagan to have him with them in perpetuity. The young fellow I tutor at Blogcritics, RJ Elliott, one of those in mourning, could start the bidding. He will offer at least $5 for Reagan's right big toe.
11 - Michael Croft
Mac D,
I'm not sure if it would be appropriate to recycle RWR. Sure "Thrifty Republicans used every part of the dead Statesman..." is a good soundbite, but I don't think that Richard Mellon Sciafe (for instance) needs any more spleen.
Plus, it would make Reagan turn over in his grave. Oh, wait.
12 - Bigtime
South Dakota isn't the best part of America for monuments, you have to travel to it. Another part of America is
visible from anywhere.
http://www.ttsw.com/rushmoreisfull.html
13 - CW
Well, if we can't put him in the Washington Mall we'll put him in the Mall of America.
Why not stuff him? Roy Rogers did it.
Ms. Diva's on it with the relic idea. Best of all, it's an easy scam. "This..." you say, holding some dried chicken part in a crystal, "is his pituitary."
Re: Rushmore, I say close the damn thing and redigitize it to whatever you want. It doesn't matter, and I don't care. OK, I do. I want Aaron Burr up there.
What a great distraction from this competitive campaign, this dragged-out war and the whole subject of tits.
14 - RJ Elliott
OK. So, I'm guessing most Reagan-hating Leftists don't want him on Mount Rushmore. Fair enough.
But, by blocking this, you also prevent the Liberal Lion FDR from being chisled into stone for all eternity.
Sooo...does hate of one overpower love for another? I'll let the philosophers decide...
15 - Shark
RJ: "...does hate of one overpower love for another..."
For "leftists" -- love means never destroying a mountain in order to prove your point.
We're zen environmentalists, you nitwit; we prefer to immortalize our heroes in sand paintings.
(btw: Clinton's caption will say "Blow Me.")
16 - JOSE
The idea of Reagan (or anyone for that matter) being added to a Mt. Rushmore sickens me. Whether or not you're a fan of Reagan, Mt. Rushmore is a national treasure and argueably the greatest and most recongnizable sculpture in the world. To add to it, would be a slap in the face to the original artist and HIS message, and would desecrate the piece as a whole. The work is complete - leave it alone. Name an Airport, or add something to the Mall, but LEAVE RUSHMORE ALONE.
17 - Bill
FDR will probably never grace another major monument. Money will see to that.
Mount Rushmore is not a sacred object... if the majority were to deam it, another face would not be sacrilege, at least we recognise that Reagan was photogenic.
Perhaps, since Ronnie was in so many Westerns, we could ask the Ziolkowski family to add him to the Crazy Horse Memorial. That way the RWW could help pay for the Crazy Horse Memorials completion and Ronnie would have a spot where he wouldn't have to be seen with Democrats.
http://www.crazyhorsememorial.org/
18 - brian
Nah. We already have a towering memorial to Reagan's legacy: it's called the national debt.
19 - cathy S.
Leave Mount Rushmore alone.
Mount Rushmore is a work of art.
Sculptor Gutson Borglum (forgive my spelling) wanted to honor four great presidents.
It should be up to the Borglum estate or whoever is entrusted to its upkeep as to whether to add Reagan or Roosevelt or LBJ or anyone to Mt. Rushmore.
To add another face would be like adding another face to the Mona Lisa or the Last Supper.
20 - Douglas Mays
Don't mess with the mountain. Maybe a big statue that the birds can poop on...
peaceloveguidance
21 - CA
Anyone who has watched the hisory of the carving of Mt.Rushmore should know it isn't feasable to carve another figure on it. First the scuplture is not as it was originaly intended to be,
There was supposed to be a giant stone tabliture to the history of the U.S.
Jackson was first started on the left side of Washington. Due to impurities, cracks in the rock, it had to be destroyed and started again in it's present location, which left no room for the tabliture. And Jackson's head had to be tilted up as they kept running into a crevice in the rock. Today several cracks are monitored visualy and electronicaly on the carving one threatens to send Lincolns nose plumiting to the bottom. So you see that if there was no more room for the tabliture then how is there room for any more heads? Futhermore any new blasting would threaten to destroy the existing carving.
Case Closed
22 - Mac Diva
Good information, CA. I can tell you, unlike the person who wrote the entry, did some research on Mount Rushmore. Checking to see if the idea was feasible before promoting it would have made a lot of sense.
And, frankly, I am not seeing a political bifurcation among people about the notion of carving Ronald Reagan's image into the poor mountain. People just think it is a rotten idea.
23 - JR
Feasable schmeasable. The kind of people who would try to put Reagan on Rushmore are the kind of people who would try to curb teen pregnancy by teaching abstinance, protect the environment by deregulating industry, and establish a Arab democracy with minimal troops and wishful thinking. Why the fuck should the laws of physics give them pause?
They'll go ahead and bring the whole mountain-side down in the attempt. Which is cool by me - that would leave the best monument to Conservative hubris.
24 - simon b
Hey, Cathy S... don't mention the Last Supper in this context, otherwise people will be down the gallery:
"Well, maybe we could slip Ronnie in at the side..."
"He *was* a great after dinner speaker..."
"It's not too unlikely that Christ would have booked him, had he been able..."
25 - Eric Olsen
in addition to all the practical matters mentioned about Rushmore, it is also a work of place and time - to alter it would be, as Jose said, a grave disservice to the artist