(4 more years of) Service
Most architectural firms claim to be "service" oriented.
As do most retail outlets, car repair shops, donut shops...
This word (service) is problematic on many levels.
Its primary meaning: Servant (as in domestic or governmental) comes from social class divisions. Haves and have nots. The have nots serve the haves, and vice versa.
Its (Service) secondary meanings include:
government branches, military branches, work done for a superior, devotion to God...
All of these non-equal relationships, among participants;
Imbalanced, partitioning and sub-ordinating.
Most architects I have met seem to be trying to do one thing: obtain money to change words into effective physical constructs. The only service in this seems to be to the architects who want to direct how large things are defined and assembled.
We assume they will be best at directing the assemblage of large works, assuming the large works will indeed be beneficial.
The war in Iraq is an example of a large work.
Equating the current administration with architecture could also be questionable.
The current administration may claim it to be for the service of common good but I suspect if that was their primary motive they would have become social workers, or at least doctors, or at the very best sandwich makers.
Apparatus is not a service based organization.
It hopes through collaborative thought, mutually beneficial agendas can become obvious.
And something truly common and good can be made.