Bush and the NEA

[Leigh Witchel]

Ian, if you'll look at the exchange between kfw, and myself or dirac, you'll see parts of the same argument as the discussion between Jacob Sullum and O'Reilly.

Sullum's argument is doctrinaire libertarian; he thinks government should not be involved in culture at all in any way. I think it's a genuinely self-destructive argument. Culture is part of society, and right now, like it or not, government is one of the ways society functions as a unit. If government isn't fostering culture, culture won't happen.

Sullum mixes two arguments, I think disingenuously. Though he states at the outset that he doesn't believe the NEA should exist at all, he brings up examples of potentially offensive funding. Examples he has never seen, which he further admits are outweighed by the non-controversial groups funded. If you'll look at Alexandra's post a few back about people taking one outrageous example of a program's mistake to attack the whole program, I think you may see that this is exactly what Sullum is doing. And his objective is not to reform the NEA, it's to dismantle it. kfw, I recognize that your argument uses the same objections without the same goals. Still, I think you might wish to be careful who you cast your lot with. Those who tolerate "offensive art" would still leave funding for the symphonies.

[Mel Johnson]

Oh, goody, at least now we're getting into the phase where the equivalent of "Entartete Kunst" is starting to be breathed. Now, at least the cryptos will be capable of decoding.

[carbro]

Mr. Gioia will appear on C-SPAN (1)'s American Perspectives, Saturday, Feb. 21, at 8:00 p.m., likely to be repeated later. Check C-SPAN.org. For details, you can click arrows in the box in the center of the page.