Excuses
January 29th, 2004 - 12:19 pm
I’m seeing lots of excuse-mongering over Bush’s proposed doubling of the NEA budget. The excuses can be summarized as follows:
“It’s only 20 million dollars.”
“The NEA funds Shakespeare.”
“Congress won’t go for it.”
“It’s just a political ploy.”
Now ask yourself, honestly, what you’d be saying if President Gore were the one making the announcement.
“20 million dollars???”
“I don’t care if they fund Shakespeare.”
“Congress had better not go for this.”
“Stupid political ploys.”
And, really, that’s different how?
How is it different? Maybe in that Gore wouldn’t be telling the ICC to get bent, the Kyoto nuts to go suck an icicle, and doing what needs to be done to protect the country.
Bush’s spending pisses me off a great deal, especially on crap like the NEA. However, I believe it’s the same kind of political dance that he’s given the Assault Weapons Ban and a zillion other things of equal stupidity. He’s in an election year. He needs votes. He knows he can get a whole lot of them if he pays lip service to such things, and he also knows he can shrug, give a smirk and play both sides when such things get slaughtered in Congress. “Hey, I tried” on one hand, and “It never had a prayer” on the other.
And, as I’ve been oft to point out, there are bigger issues than a freakin’ NEA budget that won’t pass. I for one would rather concentrate on the steak and not the peas.
The honest answer is that I’d be much harder on President Gore over something like this. When your man does something you don’t like, you get a little mad and make exuses for him. When the other side’s man does them, it’s the end of the Republic.
There are reasons for this kind of behavior up to a point, but Steve is wise to remind us of the foolishness of the dynamic carried to extremes.
If we had a President Gore, we would all still be screaming at him to do something against the terrorists that we would not even care about the NEA money.
As a conservative, I think the NEA ought to be canned outright–the government has no business making artistic judgements with taxpayer dollars, no matter what ends up getting funded. On the other hand, I do think an emphasis on Shakespeare and other proven works of Western culture is a silver lining to an otherwise-dark cloud. Summary: far from optimal, but has a few minor redeeming qualities, and certainly not make-or-break come November.
Art doesn’t fit very well in a free market environment, just look at all the starving artists who were acknowledged as great after their deaths. Art requires patronage. But does it require government patronage? I think artists should go back to currying the favor of private philanthropists, instead of hanging around the hippie section of town, waiting for their government check.
If I were a philanthropist, I’d tell supplicants: “I know people need art; you don’t have to convince me of that. What you have to convince me of, is why people need *your* art.”
There is no difference. it sucks that he’s doing it. If I had a Republican in Congress to talk to, I’d encourage him to oppose it.
But I’m still voting for W for President, because any of the Democrats would be worse.
Robert Mapplethorpe was actually a brilliant photographer. He could have made a fortune selling his non-erotic compositions in the calendar market. By funding an exhibition of his contraversal works, the NEA denied the nation access to his work.
The government and art corrupt each other. So long as the NEA exists, American art will be blantently political and totally forgetable.
Main difference under Pres. Gore:
We’d all be hunkered down waiting for the next attack…and we wouldn’t care who paid for the pictures on the wall. Meanwhile our Ruler would be trying to determine the root cause of the NY/LA/yournamehere nucular incident.
It’s not a doubling; it’s an increase from ~$120M to ~$140M. Can I ask why this seems to be such a hot-button issue for conservatives? Y’all don’t seem to get 100 times as incensed about the 100-times-higher NASA budget.
…nor $400M in faith-based family values BS.