Farewell Mapplethorpe, Hello Shakespeare (Roger Kimball on NEA, the W. way)

National Review Online ^ | January 29, 2004 | Roger Kimball

[NutCrackerBoy]

Farewell Mapplethorpe, Hello Shakespeare
The NEA, the W. way.

By Roger Kimball

Under normal circumstances, the White House announcement that the president was seeking a big budget increase for the National Endowment for the Arts might have been grounds for dismay. Pronounce the acronym "NEA," and most people think Robert Mapplethorpe, photographs of crucifixes floating in urine, and performance artists prancing about naked, smeared with chocolate, and skirling about the evils of patriarchy.

Thanks, but no thanks.

But things have changed, and changed for the better at the NEA. The reason can be summed up in two trochees: Dana Gioia, the distinguished poet and critic who is the Endowment's new chairman.

Within a matter of months, Mr. Gioia has transformed that moribund institution into a vibrant force for the preservation and transmission of artistic culture. He has cut out the cutting edge and put back the art. Instead of supporting repellent "transgressive" freaks, he has instituted an important new program to bring Shakespeare to communities across America. And by Shakespeare I mean Shakespeare, not some PoMo rendition that portrays Hamlet in drag or sets A Midsummer Night's Dream in a concentration camp. (Check the website www.shakespeareinamericancommunities.org for more information.)

Mr. Gioia is moving on other fronts as well. He has hired a number of able deputies who care about art and understand that what the public wants is more access to good art — opera, poetry, theater, literature — not greater exposure to social pathology dressed up as art. After a couple of decades of cultural schizophrenia, the NEA has become a clear-sighted, robust institution intent on bringing important art to the American people.

It's quite odd, really. People keep telling us — that is, professors and CNN commentators and Hollywood actors keep telling us — how very stupid President Bush is. Yet everywhere one looks he is supporting some of the most intelligent and dynamic people ever to occupy their cultural posts. Dana Gioia at the NEA, his counterpart Bruce Cole at the National Endowment for the Humanities, Leon Kass and his panel of distinguished scientists and philosophers at the President's Council on Bioethics (see their website www.bioethics.gov to get a sense of the good work they are doing on clarifying the enormous moral issues surrounding the debate over biotechnology). The Left keeps screaming about how dim George Bush is, but in the meantime, he has illuminated one area of public life after another with immensely talented and articulate people.

There is plenty of room for debate about whether and to what extent government should be directly involved in funding culture. But there can be no argument that if we are going have public support of the arts, it should be done in an enlightened and life-affirming way. This is the George Bush approach to cultural reinvigoration. Conservatives — by which term I mean people who are interested in conserving what is best from the past — should applaud his efforts. After years in the wilderness, the NEA has finally come home.

— Roger Kimball is managing editor of The New Criterion and author of Art's Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity.

[Wife of D28Man]

Possibly Dubya is setting up a win-win strategy here: the Dems have always hollered for increasing the NEA budget with nary a concern for the federal budget - because it funded one of their most potent propaganda tools.

Dubya is suggesting raising the NEA budget beyond their wildest dreams - while returning NEA's mandate to promoting legitimate art and depriving the libs of that source of propaganda. If the Dems say either (A) that the budget can't sustain such an increase, or (B) that the arts shouldn't be "controlled" by (a rightwing extremist religious) government, Dubya can "capitulate" and say righto, this is discretionary spending, or government shouldn't be involved in the arts because of an inherent propaganda factor - and we can discuss dismantling the NEA once and for all.

OR the left will just have to sit helpless as we reclaim the NEA for the promotion of Western Civ culture, hoping desperately that they will be able to "undo the damage" when it's their turn. (And there has been a marked revival for the classics in the last couple of years; a few years of serious investment in introducing Western Civ into the educational environment will go a long way toward cleaning up what has been passing for culture in America the past decade or so.)

And once we grab the generation's imagination, we can work our way back to such things as philosophy and governance and, dare we say it, our Constitution and Founding Documents..liberty, private property, social contracts, freedom of speech and religion, personal responsibility.

You can't argue the Constitution with people who have been raised to believe that radical individualism is freedom and that all rights come from government. Reclaiming the arts may be one of the most potent weapons we will have against socialist creep.

[Romulus]

The NEA is going to be around forever, whether you like it or not.

Which is precisely why I'm so wary of its growth.

You forget the fact that phrase "culture war" is not hyperbole. It's us or them, and unless we are willing to spend money and fight for "us" - then it's going to be "them."

Trust me, I do not forget it at all. But even given the temporary ascendancy of those more or less well-disposed to our cultural heritage, I have grave doubts about the ability of process-calculating technocrats to act as curators of Western culture. First, because I doubt most of them would recognise it if they saw it (how many West wing bigfeet in any administration do you suppose read Homer or Dante?) Second, because all evidence I've seen suggests that to professional politicians the budget is merely a bookmaking process to match buyers and sellers of political influence, in the interest of nothing more grand than the survival of whoever happens to be in power. I do not believe for a moment that those funding the NEA see themselves as doing anything more than buying the good will of a constituency requiring acknowledgment, with a bit of patronal adulation tossed in as customary lagniappe.

[Technogeeb]

I have noticed that FR is drifting from its constitutional moorings. It seems to me that on many FR threads that we need to return to constitutionalism and strict constructionism

I seriously doubt that more than a tiny percentage of people on FR actually believe in real Constitutional government (i.e., limiting the Federal government to what is enumerated in Article 1, section 8, etc.).

[Richard Kimball]

You know, I don't think you really are George Bush. He never talks to me like that.

First, if you'll reread my post, I stated that I know that the taxing authority for NFL stadiums is not Federal. Second, if you'll read the last line of my post, I said BTW, I believe that funding for the Arts should be out of private donations. If Gregorian chants aren't popular enough to sell cds, tickets, or at the least, receive private donations, maybe there's not any need for Gregorian chant subsidies.

Now, here's the point. There are not enough fiscal conservatives to win an election. This does not mean that fiscal conservatives cannot win elections. It does mean we need to persuade people who disagree with us. I already agreed with every point you made, and you're insulting me for it. How do you expect to get anyone who doesn't agree with you to come around to your way of thinking?

[livius]

I do not believe for a moment that those funding the NEA see themselves as doing anything more than buying the good will of a constituency requiring acknowledgment...

This is true, and as you say, it will be temporary. Once the Dems get in again, it's going to be back to the usual foul stuff. But it's so nice to get even a brief acknowledgment!

[George W. Bush]

Whatever rights are not specifically granted to the federals, are reserved for the states. Whatever rights are not specifically granted to the state, are reserved for the people.

Thank you for that fresh breath of constructionist constitutionalism.

FR has been drifting a little from her old moorings. Posts like yours give me hope.

[George W. Bush]

You know, I don't think you really are George Bush. He never talks to me like that.

Actually, I'm quite certain that you're right about that other George Bush never talking about constitutional principle. I'm convinced of it.

First, if you'll reread my post, I stated that I know that the taxing authority for NFL stadiums is not Federal.

I did notice that. But having demonstrated you knew the proper separation of powers and rights, you then tried to sneak them back into your argument. It seems a little dissimulative, especially since you can't claim ignorance of the legal foundations of the Republic. Plenty of others here at FR seem to have forgotten we have a constitution but you obvously don't have that excuse.

Now, here's the point. There are not enough fiscal conservatives to win an election. This does not mean that fiscal conservatives cannot win elections. It does mean we need to persuade people who disagree with us. I already agreed with every point you made, and you're insulting me for it. How do you expect to get anyone who doesn't agree with you to come around to your way of thinking?

I don't agree. You can't let the lion chew meat off your leg, hoping he'll get enough to let you live. He'll always want more if he considers you to be his food.

Those who want to feed off others (unless disabled) must be stopped in principle. And giving the masses their bread and circuses was the fate of the Roman republic. We'll follow the same path if we won't learn.

Admittedly, my post was somewhat heated and some of my argument with others spilled into my response to you.

[George W. Bush]

I always appreciate it when GOP liberals out themselves so forthrightly. It saves excess typing to order to expose them.

[RiflemanSharpe]

We ahve no business funding the NEA at all, it is a waste of money.

[xp38]

Announcer: Good evening and welcome to another edition of It's the Arts. And we kick off this evening with Cinema.

Host: Good evening. One of the most prolific film directors of this age, or indeed of any age, is Sir Edward Ross, back in his native country for the first time for five years to open a season of his works at the National Film Theatre, and we are indeed fortunate to have him with us in this studio tonight.

Ross: Good evening.

Host: Edward... you don't mind if I call you Edward?

Ross: No, not at all.

Host: Because it does worry some people - I don't know why - but they are a little sensitive so I take the precaution of asking on these occasions.

Ross: No, that's fine.

Host: So Edward's all right. Splendid. I'm sorry to have brought it up.

Ross: No, no, please. Edward it is.

Host: Well thank you very much for being so helpful. And it's more than my job's worth to, er...

Ross: Yes, quite.

Host: Makes it rather difficult to establish a rapport - put the other person at his ease...

Ross: Quite.

Host: Silly little point but it does seem to matter. Still, er, least said the better. Ted, when you first started you... I hope you don't mind if I call you Ted, er, I mean as opposed to Edward?

Ross: No, no, everyone calls me Ted.

Host: Well of course it's shorter, isn't it.

Ross: Yes it is.

Host: And much less formal!

Ross: Yes, Ted, Edward or anything!

Host: Thank you. Um, incidentally, do call me Tom. I don't want you bothering with this 'Thomas' nonsense! Ha ha ha ha! Now where were we? Ah yes. Eddie Baby, when you first started in the...

Ross: I'm sorry, I'm sorry, but I don't like being called "Eddie Baby".

Host: What?

Ross: I don't like being called "Eddie Baby".

Host: (pause) Did I call you "Eddie Baby"?

Ross: Yes, you did! Now if you could get on with the interview...

Host: I don't think I did call you "Eddie Baby".

Ross: You did!

Host: Did I call him "Eddie Baby"?

(Audience murmurs of 'yes' etc.)

Host: I didn't really call you "Eddie Baby", did I, sweetie?

Ross: Don't call me "sweetie"!

Host: Can I call you "sugar plum"?

Ross: No.

Host: "Pussycat"?

Ross: No!

Host: "Angel drawers"?

Ross: No you may not! Get on with it!

Host: Can I call you "Frank"?

Ross: (suspiciously) Why "Frank"?

Host: It's a nice name. Richard Nixon's got a hedgehog called Frank.

Ross: What IS going on?

Host: Now Frank -- Fran -- Frannie -- little Frannie-pooh...

Ross: No. I'm leaving. I'm off. I'm going. I've never... (exits)

Host: (loudly) Tell us about your latest film, Sir Edward.

Ross: (nearly offstage) What?

Host: Tell us about your latest film, Sir Edward, if you'd be so very kind.

Ross: None of this "Pussycat" nonsense?

Host: Promise. (Pats seat next to him.) Please, Sir Edward.

Ross: My latest film?

Host: Yes, Sir Edward.

Ross: Well the idea, funnily enough, is based on an idea I had when I first joined the industry in 1919. Of course, in those days I was only the tea boy and...

Host: Oh shut up!

[George W. Bush]

LOL. Nice summary of the NEA's contribution to America.

Reminds me of at least two others from Python on the subject.

[Richard Kimball]

Thanks for your response, and I think I've found our disconnect. I couldn't figure out why you were so upset with me when we agreed. It's my fault. I wasn't clear. I was using the NFL as another example of government underwriting of what should be private business. I don't think it's a good thing. I understand that when a business brings money into town that the town has to consider roads, etc. to help accomodate the business. My problem is the situations where the city or state builds 200 luxury boxes and then gives them to the team owner to sell for hundreds of thousands each. If the NFL is popular enough to have stadiums this luxurious, they should be able to generate revenues to build them without governmental aid. Again, I realize that this is a local issue, rather than federal, but I do wonder how cities and states get around the equal protection clause when they abate property taxes, etc, in sweetheart deals with specific companies. I mean, if lowering taxes for one business brings in 400 jobs, wouldn't lowering overall tax rates bring in 400 jobs with twenty small businesses?

When I see the anger here, though, I think about Pat Buchanan. I agreed with a lot of what Buchanan said, but not all. Buchanan split the Republicans and totaled the American party because of the way he conducted himself. He always looked angry, pessimistic, and like he was slightly constipated. He berated, rather than persuaded.

Most citizens don't think about policy. They think image. When they saw Bill Clinton, they saw a folksy southern drawl easy going guy they'd like to have a beer with, and didn't think about who he was. Think of it. How could anyone vote for Ronald Reagan in 1984 and Bill Clinton in 1992? Because they didn't really think about what they stood for. They thought they were both pretty likeable guys.

And this is the battle we have to get over. We persuade some and defeat others. Remember what Kelly Bundy said, "you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar, but if you pull their wings off, they'll stay whereever you put them." I'd like to see NEA abolished, and I agree with you that it's Unconstitutional. I do support the arts. I downloaded a Jimmy Buffet cd off iTunes just a little while ago. But I didn't ask you to pay for it, and Jimmy Buffet's the kind of art I like to patronize. And that's where we make our argument. But we have to persuade them, we can't order someone to vote for Constitutional government, and the Constitution is only as strong as our willingness to protect it. Take care.

[George W. Bush]

I was using the NFL as another example of government underwriting of what should be private business. I don't think it's a good thing. I understand that when a business brings money into town that the town has to consider roads, etc. to help accomodate the business.

I'll explain a little further. I've always voted against and fought expansion of gambling in any state I've lived in (and usually lost). I was part of a small group of people who successfully opposed the building of the state's new (and only) penitentiary in my hometown. They were using the usual economic development arguments mixed with half-truths, similar to the stadium promoter crowd. Surprising just how few people it took to stop that, using the right strategy.

So you can see why these issues can push my buttons.

However, you can't stop them from doing these things unless you pass a state constitutional amendment which specifically prohibits such socialization of prison or business or entertainment costs.

He [Pat] always looked angry, pessimistic, and like he was slightly constipated.

Actually, he had some lower G.I. surgery about 6 weeks before election 2000.

Your suspicion of constipation may have been the correct diagnosis. It was an embarassing campaign. I was a one-time supporter of his but certainly didn't vote for him in 2000.

[Alamo-Girl]

I just wanted to say thank you for your excellent essay at post 92!

Back when I lived in Texas, it was a Democrat supermajority, moving steadily left, ideologically. Now it is a Republican supermajority and moving steadily right, ideologically. This was not an ideological battle won on intellectual grounds – as you noted, most voters have no idea and don’t care.

It seems to me that the supermajority was won by pulling from the center, by the personality of Governor George Bush who was likeable to the public while at the same time he was taking issues out of the hands of the Democrats. An adversary cannot club you if you've stolen his club.

Many here are quite chagrined at Bush’s stealing issues from the Democrats and conclude that Bush is therefore ideologically impure. But, IMHO, stealing issues is the only method which will work to create a supermajority in congress and in the judiciary. As in Texas, once that supermajority is in place, then is the opportune time to move steadily to the right, ideologically. Of course, the general public will continue neither to know nor care...

My two cents, FWIW...

[Gerasimov]

Exactly right... This crap will turn conservatives away, for sure. If he thinks some liberal hand wringing artist POS is going to say "Oh, I thought Bush was evil for his war on terror, but since threw a few bucks to my artist friends, I'll vote for him..." he's getting some terrible advice.

[Hillarys nightmare]

" What do you expect would happen if W moved to abolish the NEA?"

I think that his conservative base(who elected him in the first place) would be ecstatic!
While the libs (who never supported him and never will, regardless of how hard he tries to get them to like him) will site him as the insensitive and socially destructive fool they have always said he was!
Do you honestly believe that liberal Democrats are going to vote for him because of this?
If you do, then you must also believe that pigs do in fact possess the ability to fly!

[yonif]

Regardless of what people think of the NEA, funding for it was not going to go away in any case.

Still doesn't mean you can't fight against it, just like many other issues conservatives fight, issues which to some seem inevitable as failure.

[A.J.Armitage]

You guys would rather the government would allow the whole house to fall down and we'd be paying the property tax on it forever, or a perfectly good thing will be destroyed forever and your children and grandchildren will be deprived of something that has existed down through the ages. THAT is NOT conserative.

Couldn't have said it better myself. What these people don't realize is that, thanks to a little known clause in the original act, if the NEA ever stops getting taxpayers' money from the Federal government, the very next day jackbooted thugs will deploy to raid every library, bookstore, and home in America to seize all texts of Shakespeare, and burn them. Within the week, invasions of other countries will begin to destroy their copies also.

So if you like Shakespeare, keep the NEA funded.

[WaterDragon]

Congress is never going to dismantle the NEA, not in our lifetimes. So, to nudge it in a more American-traditional-culture direction makes VERY good sense.

[P.O.E.]

Can't help but think of that old 10cc song:

"Art for art's sake,
Money for God's sake...."