It Starts with Banners on Government Buildings

Donald Trump and Mount Rushmore - Getty Images

It is a well known fact that Trump has not been shy to repeat over and over again that he wants his face on Mount Rushmore. In recent news, Trump has already draped enormous banners of himself on government buildings including one at the Department of Agriculture next to Lincoln. This has brought renewed focus to important discussions about leadership, respect, and the nature of authority. Trump has defended his idea by pointing to practices in countries like China and North Korea, suggesting that such displays represent a form of respect.

Department of Agriculture - Reuters

Historically, leaders have used imagery to project authority and connect with citizens. Statues of Roman emperors and paintings of American presidents in galleries showcase this longstanding tradition. These symbols have established a legacy for those in power.

Trump’s idea mirrors practices found in nations with authoritarian regimes, where a leader's image is often everywhere. For instance, in North Korea, images of Kim Jong-un and his father, Kim Jong-un, are prevalent in public spaces. This raises critical questions about the motivations driving Trump’s proposal and the significant effects it may have on foundational democratic values, such as individual freedom and diversity of thought.

The portrayal of political leaders in prominent locations often reflects a nation’s cultural values and views on authority. In authoritarian regimes, such displays act as tools of propaganda, reinforcing the regime's dominance. In a democracy like the United States, however, such moves could provoke mixed reactions, as they might contradict the principles of individualism that shape the nation’s character.

By mimicking these authoritarian practices, Trump risks altering the public’s understanding of leadership in a democracy. Instead of focusing on the common good through policies and actions, these displays may lead to a cult of personality that emphasizes the individual over collective governance.

The psychological effects of large public displays can be profound. While they can foster pride and unity, they might also evoke feelings of manipulation. For instance, national monuments usually inspire collective identity and historical reflection. On the other hand, featuring a single leader's image could imply a demand for loyalty instead of aiming for inspiration.

Research shows that the way leaders are represented shapes public perceptions and attitudes. This kind of branding might blur the lines between genuine admiration and forced reverence, leading to potential divisions within communities. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Centre in 2022 found that 62% of Americans felt uncomfortable with a president’s image in public spaces, indicating significant apprehension about personalization in leadership.

The media plays a significant role in shaping public perception of such actions. When Trump’s photographs occupy government buildings, discussions about their appropriateness can overshadow important policy debates. The media may end up focusing on the spectacle of the images rather than the real issues affecting citizens.

For example, a recent analysis by a leading news outlet showed that controversies surrounding presidential imagery received three times more coverage than critical discussions on healthcare reform. This shift can encourage polarization among political groups, ultimately straining the fabric of democracy and civic discourse.

Displaying one’s image in a position of authority raises ethical questions. While leaders may seek respect and legacy, the methods they choose are crucial. Ethical leadership should prioritize integrity, accountability, and public trust.

By placing his image prominently, Trump risks diluting the essence of honourable leadership, turning it into mere self-promotion. A Gallup poll from early 2023 revealed that 57% of Americans doubt the sincerity of leaders who heavily market themselves. This indicates mistrust regarding whether personal branding aligns with the principles of effective governance.

As this issue develops, it brings forth broader questions about the future of democracy in America. The prevalence of large photographs could lead to a shift towards leader-centric governance, moving away from collective decision-making by elected bodies.

The trend of personalizing leadership poses a threat to faith in democratic institutions. Citizens must critically evaluate whether these displays are in line with the democratic ideals they cherish or if they signal a move toward a more authoritarian governance model.

As Trump advocates for this proposal, several potential outcomes could arise. One possibility is the emergence of grassroots movements resisting such displays, emphasizing the importance of a democratic identity and advocating for collective representation over individual glorification.

Conversely, if the public accepts these visual changes, it could pave the way for future administrations to adopt similar practices. Normalizing this kind of self-promotion might create a legacy of personal monuments, further embedding individual images into public consciousness and perpetuating this pattern among political figures.

Trump's suggestion to place his photographs on government buildings invites critical examination of leadership, authority, and public perception. By redefining how leadership is visually represented in a democratic context, it raises essential questions about individualism, ethical governance, and public trust in institutions.

But Trump can not help himself - he has a need and a want to be seen and heard all the time. Vanity is his middle name. It Starts with Banners on Government Buildings - May 15, 2025