3 Comments

  1. Mike H.

    How many original artworks do you have hanging on your wall and how many prints?

    Real art is expensive. I don’t think the government is forcing these programs to promote any politics, they lean left because most higher educated people do.

    Should the government compel people to support the arts through taxation? Should it compel them to do anything, really?

    I like your states argument but it is out of place here. These are federal programs broadcasting to all states. The states and most cities have their own arts budgets.

    Art isn’t essential to life but it does make it more beautiful. My major complaint with Republicans is that they tend to cut taxes on the wealthiest and concurrently cut social services to the middle and working classes. This proposed budget to cut federal funding to public broadcasting is par for the course. The every man for himself philosophy leads to an ugly society no one wants to live in.

    There’s a lot of things we don’t HAVE to have. Paul said he was content with just food and clothing. I prefer a little more out if life. How about we don’t cut taxes on the rich and we leave NPR the way it is.

    I guess I should add that I’m a conservative. I do support the cuts to Planned Parenthood because the abortion mill needs to stop.

    • Raoul

      I like your point Mike.

      I agree the world will be less “fun” to live in if art were absent from our surrounding. But if the government did support art, who decides what “art” is?

      I am actually an artist. I once submitted a design proposal for an outdoor piece which was to be paid by the city. I was disappointed when my design was not chosen. But I got infuriated and insulted when the winning piece turned out In my opinion) to be amateurish at best. I suspected that the judges were part of an elected city committee. I doubt if any were trained in design or art appreciation — a highly educated businessman who is good with numbers may be ignorant when it comes to art.

      My point is, art is subjective. If you leave decisions to people who spend money that isn’t theirs, it’s easy to waste.

      The rich always support art. Art (good or bad) will never disappear. If Carnegie wants to spend his excess to a concert Hall, let him. If Bill Gates wants to spend his excess to help impoverished nations, let him. If Medici wants to spend money on Raphael or Michelangelo, let him.

      I do admit that the government isn’t all that bad. The monuments that surround Washington DC for example are magnificent.
      So yes, there’s room for government intervention too.

  2. Great article. I share most if not all your views.

    I believe in the old adage that people should put their money where their mouth is. If they want it, they will support it. Public funding should keep these programs open.

    As most of us agree, we live in a divided country. And it is divided because neither wants to listen to the other side. NPR, CBS, NBC, CNN, The New York Times, etc. all lean left because a majority (maybe 100%) of their key employees are liberal minded. Unlike Fox they rarely show discussions with opposing right wingers. They think they “know it all” and refuse to entertain other viewpoints. It’s become a personal issue, a pride issue … almost like they are afraid their “reality bubble” will burst if enough facts prick them.

    This isn’t an exclusive liberal media problem … the Right wing media should listen as well.

    So, going back to the original point, the Arts, the media, etc. should only be funded IF an equal number of opinions are given “prime time.” Unless this happens, then the message they will convey will only benefit an isolated sector of society — that would be tax dollars unfairly spent.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.