A structure constructed in the style of a Greek temple rests upon a modest green. It rivals the Parthenon in its colossal size, bold beauty, and imbued sanctity. Pillars surround the entirety of the edifice, every one of them stretching forty-four feet from the base to the roof. The white surface of its Yule marble walls shines ever radiant and pure in the light of the sun, as if it were an eternal beacon beckoning to flocks of worshipers yet to make their pilgrimage to its hallowed hall. Inside this place of worship sits a masterfully crafted marble statue, which lingers at a height of nineteen feet over any who gaze upon it. The grandiose icon depicts its subject in a way that is customarily reserved for gods. Just like a god, the statue is always present, always watching, and always ripe for reverence. Above the head of this chiseled god, engraved deep into the interior, are these words: IN THIS TEMPLE, AS IN THE HEARTS OF THE PEOPLE FOR WHOM HE SAVED THE UNION, THE MEMORY OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN IS ENSHRINED FOREVER.

It turns out that this lavish building is not truly meant for worship—at least not the kind that would be brazenly labeled as such. If you are an American, you may recognize that inscription as the words that are emblazoned within the memorial of the sixteenth President of the United States of America, Abraham Lincoln. If you are not an American, you may find it surprising that the United States of America—a nation which has historically been recognized for its opposition to and exodus from the gaudy traditions of aristocratic majesty—would memorialize a president in such a monument. Even I, an American, am quite astonished at the seemingly royal treatment Mr. Lincoln has received in death. I am of the mind that Mr. Lincoln himself would be perplexed, and possibly even appalled, at his own enshrinement.

I would forgive someone not familiar with the monument if they were to think that it was a temple. My purposefully ambiguous description of it could even be what they would tell people in their home country after viewing the remembrance of Lincoln for the first time and without context. Even if the structure itself was presented in a humble manner, the words inside still indicate some kind of uncomfortable fascination with the man in which it is dedicated. The words TEMPLE and ENSHRINED in particular designate the monument as a holy sanctuary. It gives the building and Lincoln an aura not innately historical and honorary, but instead ethereal and spiritual. Due to this religious atmosphere, the two other engravings present within the monument—The Gettysburg Address and Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address—would appear to be more akin to gospel than political speech.

This fetishization of American political figures is not specific to Abraham Lincoln by any means. The same treatment has been imposed upon the group of men commonly referred to as The Founding Fathers, and equally so to their Constitution. While it is not out of the question whether or not some of the Founding Fathers wished for this kind of endearment—such as John Adams, who pushed heavily for the president to be properly addressed as Your Majesty—the consensus would seem to be that the American revolutionaries wished to discard the royal ways of the old world in favor of the earthy modesty of the new one. This fact makes it quite ironic that George Washington, and not John Adams, is held up as America's godlike creator, whilst he was the man who fought so fervently against Adams and his desire to equate the American presidency to the English monarchy. George Washington set the standard that not only would presidents be referred to as simply Mr. President, but that after their terms had ended they should no longer be referred to as such—a rule many presidents since Washington have forgotten or willfully ignored. Men like Washington and Lincoln did not intend or desire to be canonized; for they were not masters, they were servants.

This critique of American praise for its past leaders is in no way a denouncement of the men that are praised or the actions they took to strengthen, preserve, and further the union in which they served. The critique is with the deification of them. In death, a subset of American political figures has achieved the status of demigod. This most likely results from the deistic qualities given to them, such as Lincoln and Washington's shared alleged inability to ever tell a lie. This promotes the idea that these men were not bound by the habits and quirks of humanity, but were morally superior and more divinely constructed. I do not wish for these exceptional men to be forgotten, but instead to be recognized for what they truly were. Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Reagan, and all of the rest that are forever held within the patriotic pulse of America and its people, were simply men with the extraordinary constitution and willpower to accomplish impactful deeds despite the fundamental handicap of being human beings.

This critique is also not invective merely meant to point out America's overwhelming patriotic celebration of its leaders. For this dilemma is not inherently American. The world has seen this behavior before, but in those cases the powers of the world have been more willing to acknowledge and criticize it. America even counted itself among the ranks of the critics, granted all while it was polishing Lincoln's hulking marble shoes. The cause of this type of behavior has a clear name, and it is Nationalism. Nationalism is defined as: loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups. If that type of behavior sounds familiar, it's because it has been seen in nearly every major country at some point in its history. These bouts of nationalism are often brought on by a strong man type figure—a cult of personality—a prophet of sorts. Germany had Hitler. Italy had Mussolini. Russia had Stalin. France had Napoleon. More recently, the United States of America has Trump. Although these names are the extremes of nationalism, it is always present in a nation whether it be below the surface or at center stage.

The arrival of these charismatic leaders boosts the public perception of that particular country in the eyes of its citizens, and often scapegoats outside sources to even further remove any possibility of infallibility from that country's policies. This would often seem to lead to a series of events that turns nationalism and a country's sense of pride into a pseudo-religion. Heads of state become prophets of whatever political ideology they subscribe to—Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, and Leon Trotsky devoutly spread the word of Karl Marx throughout what would become the Soviet Union. The originators of that ideology become godlike figures open for worship—Karl Marx. Works of politics become holy books—the Communist Manifestoby Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Holy sites are established and open to pilgrimage—Karl Marx's birthplace. As opposed to the state rallying behind one of the conventional religions in order to unite the masses in a common belief, the state becomes the religion. When this notion of religious national superiority is so openly flaunted and accepted, why wouldn't you build wondrous monuments to those who preached and enhanced the religion of the state?

It is not my intention to try and forewarn anybody of a supposed American path toward nationalist fanaticism. However, it is important to draw attention to the fact that the elevation of the state and its caretakers to the status of religion is not only possible and present in the world, but there are hints of it that reside within the system of American life. When grand monuments, statues, and temples are erected to men who fought for the belief that no man, no matter how great his office or accomplishment, is worthy of being held above the people instead of standing amongst them, it would seem that we are discarding the principles passed on to us by the very men that we are so willingly holding aloft. There is a reason behind the fact that only dictators and despots have statues constructed in their image during their lifetime, because they believe themselves to be above the people. They believe themselves qualified for worship. However, there is also a reason behind the fact that the President of the United States lives in a small white house, instead of a castle or a skyscraper, because the men who set the standard for the presidency saw themselves as one of the people. They forewent unwarranted praise and pageantry to be counted among their fellow Americans. It would be more worthy of those honorable men for us to carry on that principle in their name, rather than write it in gold.