The Great Debate Round 1

[Texsox]

Note: Only responses from the participants should be posted here. The first round question is:

 

Using our tax dollars, Local, State, and National governments support the arts through grants, public art projects, and other expenditures. With rising government debt, is this a good use of tax dollars, who should decide what projects get funding, and under what criteria?

[NorthSideSox72]

I spent fifteen years of my life playing music. I played trombone and piano, in jazz clubs and concert halls. If you were to look around my home, you would see not only a broad music collection, but also a wide variety of art, including some original pieces from artists around the globe. It is my strong personal feeling that a life without some exposure to the arts is a life wasted.

 

I also believe it is not the place of the federal government to fund those arts.

 

The purpose of the federal government, in general terms, is described succinctly in the preamble of the Constitution:

 

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”

 

Simply put, the arts, and entertainment of any kind, simply have no place in the demands put on the federal government by the Constitution. Further, as is made clear by the 10th Amendment, those powers not explicitly granted to the federal government fall to the states and the people.

 

Certainly, the terms of not only the preamble but the entire document leave some flexibility. For example, the term ‘welfare’ has been taken by some to include health care, public transportation and other public needs. But which need discussed in the Constitution provides for the cultural enrichment of the people?

 

The federal government’s role is to provide the protections necessary to facilitate a safe, stable and free society, where our culture can flourish. It is not its role to fund those pursuits. The fact that the legislative and executive branches of our federal government have been unable to find some semblance of financial restraint in the use of our tax dollars only makes the funding of the arts more irresponsible.

 

As for state and local government funding, there are two different answers to the question. In the case of state government, quite simply, it falls to the constitution and laws of the state in question. If a state’s constitution and/or following laws provide for such funding, then the questions is answered.

 

Local government, I would suggest, is a whole different ballgame. As most of us would agree, what the citizens want from our city and county governments includes implementation of basic services, but also the economic development of communities. The local wheels require the grease that is cash, and that cash comes from increasing the tax base, often by way of bringing in new businesses and residents. Funding a community band concert season, or a special tax district for entertainment-related business, could make a community more desirable to prospective residents. But ultimately, at the local level, such funding should be dictated by the will of its tax-paying residents.

[FlaSoxxJim]

We live in a world of increasing specialization in which electrical engineers don't know how to fix a broken toaster. Ours is a society saddled with public primary and secondary educational systems geared toward preparing students to pass standardized achievement tests but with little ability to introduce students to the arts in any meaningful way.

 

The exception to this drab educational landscape is often the 'arts-in-the-classroom', museum outreach programs and other initiatives sponsored by the federally funded National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). For four decades, the NEA has divvied up it's annual shoestring budget to provide national, regional, and local grants to foster excellence in the arts and to ensure access to the arts and art education for all Americans, not just those in large cities.

 

To NEA I say, "Bravo."

 

Federal funding for the arts is an easy target of small-government advocates who feel tax dollars could be better spent by not subsidizing 'unemployed Bohemians' or showing paintings and playing symphonies to kids in school. One argument is that the great artists of the past found private patrons and today's artists should follow suit. Or if the art doesn't bring a return and pay for itself then it might not be worth producing. Such arguments are be made by those who do not grasp the true value of art in human society and are therefore symptomatic of the problem at hand.

 

The truth is that annual NEA funding is alarmingly small. The 2006 request was for $121 million for programs and associated costs. While that amount is less than a rounding error in terms of the federal budget, it is enough to get the program's detractors up in arms over frivolous spending on unnecessary programs. Critics should be made to understand that in 2003 the annual nonprofit arts contribution to the national economy was estimated to be $37 billion. Not a bad return. But these artists have to come from somewhere. Without Endowment-funded programs to expose kids to the arts early in life, who can say what the toll would be, in terms of undiscovered and unrealized artistic potential?

 

As to who should oversee disbursement of public funds to arts programs, I believe the NEA remains the best vehicle. There will always be some subjectivity in the selection process, but mechanisms are in place for considering public nominations for artists, institutions and programs worthy of funding. Controversial recipients such as Andres "Piss Christ" Serrano are part and parcel to the subjective nature of art, but on the whole the NEA track record of recognizing talent as well as funding need is impressive. For example, two-thirds (39 of the 58) of recipients of the National Book Award, National Book Critics Circle Awards, or Pulitzer Prizes in fiction and poetry were previous recipients of Arts Endowment Literature Fellowships. Moreover, Endowment funding sponsored the design competition for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and also provided crucial early funding for landmark institutions like the Sundance Film Festival and Chicago's famous Steppenwolf Theatre Company.

[NorthSideSox72]

Very nice post, Jim. Well done.

 

I think our bracket kicks the other brackets' asses.

 

Group A all the way!

[FlaSoxxJim]

I find your opening statements to be thoughtful and well-reasoned also. And in truth, I don't feel we are so very far apart on the issue. Particularly since you allow that there is flexibility in the way in which the 'general Welfare' of We, the People is to be interpreted.

 

Adhering, for this discussion, to the basic definition of welfare as the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, and general well-being of a person or a group, I concur with those you have alluded to that would include health care, public transportation and other public needs as welfare considerations in this country. But, these individuals, and seemingly yourself as well, have not seen fit to include education as one of the demands put on the federal government by the Constitution in its declaration that the general Welfare of the people be protected and promoted.

 

My question to you, then, is do you see the fundamental right to education as being decreed and guaranteed by the federal constitution? If so, then where does this guarantee reside, if not part of the promotion of our general Welfare as alluded to in the Preamble? If not, is it then your position that there is no constitutional mandate that the federal government has a role in funding American public education?

 

I envy you your ability to read bass clef, by the way, as it completely bewilders me. My formative musical years were spent playing trumpet and guitar, and in later years when I moved to baritone horn in concert band I realized I completely lacked the ability to sight read bass clef. My kids are doomed to years of piano lessons I'm sure, if only to ensure that they can read a grand staff.

[NorthSideSox72]

Perhaps we are not that afar apart on many aspects of this issue. We do appear to be at odds regarding direct federal funding, however, so let’s dive into that…

 

You cite some of the specific artistic contributions to our country that were made partially possible by NEA funding, such as the Vietnam War Memorial, and the Steppenwolf Theatre Company. These pillars of deep expression have undoubtedly enriched the lives of thousands if not millions, and their presence tugs at our heart-strings. I would make no argument that as an equation in a vacuum, sources ignored, the ROI on the cost of those projects wasn’t worthwhile.

 

My disagreement with you is in the source of the funding. Put simply, I do not believe the word “welfare”, which you used as the legal node of attachment for funding of the arts, can be stretched that far. Let’s take a look at what welfare is defined as…

 

From Wikipedia:

 

• In social policy, social welfare refers to the range of services intended

to meet people's needs. This is the use of the term in the idea of the

welfare state.

 

• In the United States, welfare (financial aid) refers more specifically to

money paid by the government to those who are in need of financial

assistance.

 

Even more focused is the definition in the Encarta encyclopedia, which has a specific, targeted definition addressing “work to improve welfare” (aka promotion of welfare):

 

2. work to improve people's welfare: efforts, especially on the part of

government and institutions, to ensure that the physical, social, and

financial conditions under which people live are satisfactory

 

There are differing ways to define welfare, but every source I checked that had a definition in relation to legal or governmental terminology specified something like the above. I can certainly see how things like roads, mass transit and possibly health care can fall under these umbrellas. But how is it that something that is so obviously not a need can find a place there?

 

Here is my question for you: How do you make the bridge between the legally accepted definition of government promotion of welfare, and the funding of the arts?

[FlaSoxxJim]

I take it your response to my questions about the role of the federal government in education are forthcoming. My response to you is going to hinge on where in the Constitution you see the federal responsibility for guaranteeing access to education as deriving from. It again remains conspicuously absent from your list of items to be considered under the "promotion of general welfare."

 

On that point, I'd like to make sure we do not lose that important modifier. The Constitution is nominally considered with promoting the general welfare of the American citizenry. By definition and by design this allows for interpretation, much to the dismay of the so-called constitutional constructionists and 'originalists.'

 

I'm not sure I've seen the "legally accepted definition" of welfare to which you refer. The Random House dictionary definition I used as my roadmap is that welfare is the 'good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, and general well-being of a person or a group. Webster's online offering is essentially identical ("the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity"). Federal subsidies to the arts and to art education/outreach can be seen as promoting the happiness and general well-being of program targets without any sort of stretch whatsoever.

 

I only gravitated to the "legal node" of constitutionally promoted welfare since it was an avenue explored in your initial statements and thus seems to be an appropriate springboard for this discussion. I cannot further my intended line of reasoning until I know where you stand on the federal role in funding education, however.

[NorthSideSox72]

I find your opening statements to be thoughtful and well-reasoned also.  And in truth, I don't feel we are so very far apart on the issue.  Particularly since you allow that there is flexibility in the way in which the 'general Welfare' of We, the People is to be interpreted.

 

Adhering, for this discussion, to the basic definition of welfare as the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, and general well-being of a person or a group, I concur with those you have alluded to that would include health care, public transportation and other public needs as welfare considerations in this country.  But, these individuals, and seemingly yourself as well, have not seen fit to include education as one of the demands put on the federal government by the Constitution in its declaration that the general Welfare of the people be protected and promoted.

 

My question to you, then, is do you see the fundamental right to education as being decreed and guaranteed by the federal constitution?  If so, then where does this guarantee reside, if not part of the promotion of our general Welfare as alluded to in the Preamble?  If not, is it then your position that there is no constitutional mandate that the federal government has a role in funding American public education?

 

I envy you your ability to read bass clef, by the way, as it completely bewilders me.  My formative musical years were spent playing trumpet and guitar, and in later years when I moved to baritone horn in concert band I realized I completely lacked the ability to sight read bass clef.  My kids are doomed to years of piano lessons I'm sure, if only to ensure that they can read a grand staff.

 

Here is my response to your question number 1, regarding education. Sorry if my last post wasn’t clear, in that it was intended to be my first question to you. I see you have answered that partially, but left open the need to hear about my views on education. I am not sure how to proceed in Tex’s format, in that case. But let me respond to your question in any case…

 

The short answer to your question is: yes. I do believe that general welfare includes education. Education is promoting the welfare in that it is a need for persons to function in society. One can stand, walk and exist without it, but the Constitution is there to provide more than that. It provides for a safe, stable environment where people can flourish. In order to participate in that society, a person requires some basic level of education so that they may communicate and have some sort of practical skills. Therefore, funding such a necessity to at least some extent seems not only prudent, but necessary.

 

Art is not a need. Art is recreation, cultural enrichment and many other things, none of which are necessary to function as a US citizen. As I cited earlier, promotion of the general welfare (when defined specifically as such) in those sources inevitably refers to the needs, not the wants, of a society. The dictionary definition of welfare, taken outside of a legal or governmental context, does not apply here.

 

Oh and by the way, if you think Bass clef is bad... try sight-reading tenor and alto clef. Those silly 18th Century composers kept trying to make trombones into trumpets.

[NorthSideSox72]

I take it your response to my questions about the role of the federal government in education are forthcoming.  My response to you is going to hinge on where in the Constitution you see the federal responsibility for guaranteeing access to education as deriving from.  It again remains conspicuously absent from your list of items to be considered under the "promotion of general welfare."

 

On that point, I'd like to make sure we do not lose that important modifier.  The Constitution is nominally considered with promoting the general welfare of the American citizenry.  By definition and by design this allows for interpretation, much to the dismay of the so-called constitutional constructionists and 'originalists.'

 

I'm not sure I've seen the "legally accepted definition" of welfare to which you refer.  The Random House dictionary definition I used as my roadmap is that welfare is the 'good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, and general well-being of a person or a group.  Webster's online offering is essentially identical ("the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity").  Federal subsidies to the arts and to art education/outreach can be seen as promoting the happiness and general well-being of program targets without any sort of stretch whatsoever.

 

I only gravitated to the "legal node" of constitutionally promoted welfare since it was an avenue explored in your initial statements and thus seems to be an appropriate springboard for this discussion.  I cannot further my intended line of reasoning until I know where you stand on the federal role in funding education, however.

 

OK, Flaxx, just to make sure we are clear on what comes next... I will respond to your response (above) to my first question in a little bit. You also need to respond to my response to your question. After both are done, we can then each ask a new question. Is that right? Or am I off-track somehow?

Edited January 24, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[FlaSoxxJim]

OK, Flaxx, just to make sure we are clear on what comes next... I will respond to your response (above) to my first question in a little bit.  You also need to respond to my response to your question.  After both are done, we can then each ask a new question.  Is that right?  Or am I off-track somehow?

No, that sounds right to me. If not, I'm sure the judges will dock us appropriately.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Here is my question for you: How do you make the bridge between the legally accepted definition of government promotion of welfare, and the funding of the arts?

 

My answer to your question as to how I can stretch the promise of promoting general welfare to include federal programs sponsoring the arts and art education is that, quite simply, I do not see it as any stretch at all.

 

If you accept that funding education is part of the Constitutional mandate for the promotional of American welfare, then unless you are prepared to capriciously decide what disciplines receive funding then you already tacitly accept that humanities education is going to be funded - along with the "Three Rs," science and technology education, and education in history and the social sciences. If, on the other hand, you are willing to single out the humanities as ineligible for federal funding then our dialogue is at an impasse. I suspect, however, that you respect the value of a broad educational experience steeped in liberal arts and humanities that complement other core curriculum elements.

 

I submit that the need for educational reform in this country is so broadly recognized that it is practically a meme. Again, I offer a considered opinion that federal funding for the arts and art education, through the National Endowment for the Arts and other entities, has been a hugely successful component of these sorely needed reforms. These entities provide powerful and inspiring art education experiences beyond that of the basic class curriculum, through teacher professional development fellowships, "Urban Gateway" visiting artist programs, etc. I hope to explore these programs further as part of my closing statements.

 

Now, another question for you, within the now narrowed topic of whether federal money should be used to fund the arts (I believe this is where our opinions differ the most, while we differ less so in terms of state and local expenditures in support of the arts):

 

You have come down on the "no" side of the debate. And you have provided reasoned grounds for your opinions. But are you also willing to argue for an end to federal spending on the many art education, curatorial, research, and conservation programs and initiatives of entities such as the Smithsonian Institution? Who is going to fund the SAMM (Smithsonian American Art Museum, America's first federal art collection) if the government will not? Who is going to fund the Renwick (home of three centuries of American crafts and decorative arts) if the government will not? Who would have been the archivist for uniquely American folk music for the last 50 years if not for the federal funding of Smithsonian Folkways Recordings (the nonprofit record label of the Smithsonian)?

 

I could go on, but I believe you get the point I am trying to convey.

Edited January 25, 2006 by FlaSoxxJim

[NorthSideSox72]

I take it your response to my questions about the role of the federal government in education are forthcoming.  My response to you is going to hinge on where in the Constitution you see the federal responsibility for guaranteeing access to education as deriving from.  It again remains conspicuously absent from your list of items to be considered under the "promotion of general welfare."

 

On that point, I'd like to make sure we do not lose that important modifier.  The Constitution is nominally considered with promoting the general welfare of the American citizenry.  By definition and by design this allows for interpretation, much to the dismay of the so-called constitutional constructionists and 'originalists.'

 

I'm not sure I've seen the "legally accepted definition" of welfare to which you refer.  The Random House dictionary definition I used as my roadmap is that welfare is the 'good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, and general well-being of a person or a group.  Webster's online offering is essentially identical ("the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity").  Federal subsidies to the arts and to art education/outreach can be seen as promoting the happiness and general well-being of program targets without any sort of stretch whatsoever.

 

I only gravitated to the "legal node" of constitutionally promoted welfare since it was an avenue explored in your initial statements and thus seems to be an appropriate springboard for this discussion.  I cannot further my intended line of reasoning until I know where you stand on the federal role in funding education, however.

 

I discussed how I see education fitting in, in my previous post (my response to your query). It also appears to be a theme in your 2nd, new question. So I believe that the only response/rebuttal I have to make here is to your 3rd paragraph above, regarding welfare. My new, 2nd question will be forthcoming.

 

I think this argument, whether or not the arts falls under the umbrella of the term ‘welfare’, can be addressed from two angles: Constitutional constructionist, and the role of the federal government.

 

From the constructionist point of view, the term welfare cannot be taken out of context. It is used here in the king of governmental charters, the US Constitution, and must be taken in its governmental context. As stated in my earlier posts, the legal definition of welfare is not precisely the same as the definition used in general speech. And those legal definitions, in the sources I cited, make it very clear that welfare pertains to basic needs. I cannot see how that could include art. An additional note from the Constitution that is interesting is that, believe it or not, the word ‘art’ does in fact appear in the Constitution – in Article I, section 8. There is a provision there, for the protection of original property in the arts and sciences, to guarantee their continued generation. This article is the root of copyright laws and intellectual property as we know it in the US today. The framers saw fit to protect those areas specifically in the Constitution – and yet, they are not mentioned anywhere else.

 

From a governmental role perspective, I think that the key word is “need”. Art is not a need. But the US government is there to provide for basic needs, and the protections necessary to allow for our culture to flourish independently and freely. In other words, the federal government should be there to provide the environment for art to occur – but not to fund it or choose its form.

[NorthSideSox72]

Mr. FlaSoxxJim-

 

First, I have to say I'm having quite a bit of fun discussing this topic with you. Your posts are very well thought-out, and you make some great points. You're making my job difficult, and I like that!

 

Here is my 2nd and final question for you. You have stated support for federal funding of the arts. You have also hinted at the idea that art fits well within the confines of the term 'welfare', specifically the dictionary definitions providing for happiness and good fortune. So, if the US government is to be in the business of making its citizens 'happy', then why not also fund Major League Baseball? Millions of people get a lot of enjoyment out of that every year - possibly more so than the active appreciation of art. And it is the national passtime. Or what about the NFL, NBA or NHL? How about monster truck rallies (SUNDAY! SUNDAY SUNDAY!), or even spas and massage parlors? Where, exactly, do you draw the line? What falls under the hapy umbrella, and what does not?

[NorthSideSox72]

Now, another question for you, within the now narrowed topic of whether federal money should  be used to fund the arts (I believe this is where our opinions differ the most, while we differ less so in terms of state and local expenditures in support of the arts):

 

You have come down on the "no" side of the debate.  And you have provided reasoned grounds for your opinions.  But are you also willing to argue for an end to federal spending on the many art education, curatorial, research, and conservation programs and initiatives of entities such as the Smithsonian Institution? Who is going to fund the SAMM (Smithsonian American Art Museum, America's first federal art collection) if the government will not?  Who is going to fund the Renwick (home of three centuries of American crafts and decorative arts) if the government will not?  Who would have been the archivist for uniquely American folk music for the last 50 years if not for the federal funding of Smithsonian Folkways Recordings (the nonprofit record label of the Smithsonian)?

 

I could go on, but I believe you get the point I am trying to convey.

 

Excellent question again.

 

I think the easy way to answer your question is to break it up into two stages. The first stage of your question is, do I see a grey area here? The answer is yes, I do. The Smithsonian institutions are an excellent example of this. The Smithsonian is, in essence, a guardian of some of the most crucial physical manifestations of our nation’s culture. But is it art? Or is it more of a publicly accessible national anthropological archive? There are others too.

 

The second stage of the question then is, would I be willing to end federal spending on such things? The answer to this is both yes and no. I would submit that the Smithsonian institutions be granted continued funding, under the stipulation that it maintain a strict mission as a historical vessel for the entire nation. That is to say, spending money on archaeological and historical items, famous American art, and other important items should continue. And the studies they fund to paint a clearer picture of our past as well. These are all expected of any nation – the cataloguing of events. But any variance from that mission into art or entertainment for its own sake, changes the mission, and falls outside the purview of the federal government. Those pursuits would need to be funded in some other fashion. Their mission should be as a museum – teaching history, not making it.

 

Indeed, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it will not always be black and white. But as I think its fairly clear that the federal government is not intended to entertain or make us happy, I must be of the position that restraint in spending in those grey areas would be beneficial.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Here is my 2nd and final question for you.  You have stated support for federal funding of the arts.  You have also hinted at the idea that art fits well within the confines of the term 'welfare', specifically the dictionary definitions providing for happiness and good fortune.  So, if the US government is to be in the business of making its citizens 'happy', then why not also fund Major League Baseball?  Millions of people get a lot of enjoyment out of that every year - possibly more so than the active appreciation of art.  And it is the national passtime.  Or what about the NFL, NBA or NHL?  How about monster truck rallies (SUNDAY! SUNDAY SUNDAY!), or even spas and massage parlors?  Where, exactly, do you draw the line?  What falls under the hapy umbrella, and what does not?

 

Now I likes me a good Monster Truck Rally, so this was a bit of a poser.

 

I appreciate the sentiment that there would be difficulty in drawing a line if I were to urge the federal underwriting of anything and everything that makes Americans happy. And I suppose I opened myself up to that argument extension by submitting that "general welfare" encompasses the well-being of citizens above and beyond our essential needs. Fair enough, though I keep reminding myself that critically scrutinizing the Constitutional promise of welfare promotion as a "legal node" was originally your idea of a good time. We sure know how to have fun, don't we?

 

At any rate, no, I am not willing to underwrite the whole of America's entertainment pursuits and pass-times. While I maintain that "promoting general welfare" does extend so far as to mandate some level of federal support for arts and humanities, I do not suggest such a mandate extends ad absurdum. I appreciate (as a debate tool), but do not accept the apagogical leap you have arrived at, i.e., 'if we're going to have government funded arts initiatives then we need to have government-funded monster truck rallies too.'

 

I'll engage in a bit of reductio proof by contradiction myself by way of clarification. You and I both know that we enjoy by decree of Declaration the unalienable right to the "pursuit of Happiness." And I'm pretty sure my pursuit would be more rewarding if the government got to work on a Kate Beckinsale clone or two that they could throw my way. I don't expect that's going to happen though.

 

In short, I see limited federal funding for arts and humanities as being well inside the line of reason that separates practicality from apagogy. Or as I will henceforth call it, the "Beckinsale Line."

[FlaSoxxJim]

Excellent question again.

 

I think the easy way to answer your question is to break it up into two stages.  The first stage of your question is, do I see a grey area here?  The answer is yes, I do.  The Smithsonian institutions are an excellent example of this.  The Smithsonian is, in essence, a guardian of some of the most crucial physical manifestations of our nation’s culture.  But is it art?  Or is it more of a publicly accessible national anthropological archive?  There are others too.

 

The second stage of the question then is, would I be willing to end federal spending on such things?  The answer to this is both yes and no.  I would submit that the Smithsonian institutions be granted continued funding, under the stipulation that it maintain a strict mission as a historical vessel for the entire nation.  That is to say, spending money on archaeological and historical items, famous American art, and other important items should continue.  And the studies they fund to paint a clearer picture of our past as well.  These are all expected of any nation – the cataloguing of events.  But any variance from that mission into art or entertainment for its own sake, changes the mission, and falls outside the purview of the federal government.  Those pursuits would need to be funded in some other fashion.  Their mission should be as a museum – teaching history, not making it.

 

Indeed, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it will not always be black and white.  But as I think its fairly clear that the federal government is not intended to entertain or make us happy, I must be of the position that restraint in spending in those grey areas would be beneficial.

 

Rebuttal:

 

Ah, if only man was sage enough to know the precise moment when contemporary art ascends to the level of the historic, and then transcends to become part of national heritage.

 

A recent event is perfectly illustrative of the point. Last year, a 6-disc CD box set, Jelly Roll Morton - The Complete Library of Congress Recording, was released. To say this is a landmark recording is a disservice which fails to recognize its importance in jazz music history as well as American history.

 

The history of the recording is that Jelly Roll Morton, in 1938 and near the end of his life, took a break from the gig at the D.C. jazz club he had been relegated to playing, took a seat at a piano in the Library of Congress and allowed 23 year old Alan Lomax (then an assistant in charge of the Library's Archive of American Folksong) to record him playing and singing his vast repertoire. All the while, Lomax asked and Jellyroll answered questions about himself, his music, and his recollections of life in America at the dawn of jazz. NPR ran a piece on this a few weeks back, playing a few minutes of the audio and it gave me chills.

 

So, here we have a once-in-a-century session that not only recorded the repertoire of one of the architects of jazz, but also represents literally the first oral history of jazz. It was, instantly and simultaneously, art, history, and unique American heritage. And it would not have happened if the government limited its funding of art to spending money on archaeological and historical items and famous American art. A variance from that mission, to merely make a contemporary recording of some old piano player, surely would have fallen outside the purview of the federal government in your estimation.

 

Let me comment on something else you said. One part I quite agree with, while the other gets to the heart of our differences.

 

Indeed, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it will not always be black and white.

 

You correctly recognize that where the government should spend to support art is not always going to be black and white. But - and this is where we differ - that is precisely why lines cannot be drawn on this subject. Lines are suited to matters that are easily bifurcated - black or white, yes or no, one or zero. Conversely, review panels and committees of intelligent and qualified human beings are better suited to matters that are not so readily delineated. Allow a learned peer review panel to evaluate grant applications based on various merit criteria, to determine which applicant entities should be awarded a small portion of the limited federal funding allocated to supporting. That is how it is done with federal funding in my field, the sciences. And although it might be a surprise to some, that is also how it is done with federal funding in the arts.

[NorthSideSox72]

Now I likes me a good Monster Truck Rally, so this was a bit of a poser.

 

I appreciate the sentiment that there would be difficulty in drawing a line if I were to urge the federal underwriting of anything and everything that makes Americans happy.  And I suppose I opened myself up to that argument extension by submitting that "general welfare" encompasses the well-being of citizens above and beyond our essential needs.  Fair enough, though I keep reminding myself that critically scrutinizing the Constitutional promise of welfare promotion as a "legal node" was originally your idea of a good time.  We sure know how to have fun, don't we?

 

At any rate, no, I am not willing to underwrite the whole of America's entertainment pursuits and pass-times.  While I maintain that "promoting general welfare" does extend so far as to mandate some level of federal support for arts and humanities, I do not suggest such a mandate extends ad absurdum.  I appreciate (as a debate tool), but do not accept the apagogical leap you have arrived at, i.e., 'if we're going to have government funded arts initiatives then we need to have government-funded monster truck rallies too.'

 

I'll engage in a bit of reductio proof by contradiction myself by way of clarification.  You and I both know that we enjoy by decree of Declaration the unalienable right to the "pursuit of Happiness."  And I'm pretty sure my pursuit would be more rewarding if the government got to work on a Kate Beckinsale clone or two that they could throw my way.  I don't expect that's going to happen though.

 

In short, I see limited federal funding for arts and humanities as being well inside the line of reason that separates practicality from apagogy.  Or as I will henceforth call it, the "Beckinsale Line."

 

REBUTTAL:

 

I’m glad you appreciated my bit of hyperbole and hubris in suggesting that monster truck rallies would fall within the bounds of your suggested fine arts budget. That was indeed an attempt at both humor and illustration, more so than an accusation that you might actually favor implementation of such a thing.

 

Let’s take a look at your reductio proof. I most definitely agree that we as Americans have the right to the “pursuit of Happiness.” But you see, I don’t believe that providing you with a Kate Beckinsale clone does anything whatsoever to your pursuit – such a provision would be more about your resulting happiness. The pursuit of happiness takes us back again to a similar tone as the previously argued term welfare. The pursuit of happiness denotes setting the environment as to allow for achievement. That is not the same as saying that happiness is granted. The role of the federal government is to provide a safe, stable environment for the pursuit – not to guarantee such attainment.

 

So again I’d have to say, using your didactic methodology, that there is an important difference between happiness and its pursuit. The federal government only allows for the forgone provision of one, not both. For that reason, I feel the Beckinsale line belongs as close to the bone as is reasonably possible (in so far as the feds are concerned). This means that NEA grants, monster truck rallies and, sadly, clones of Kate Beckinsale and Kate Winslet*, belong outside the purview of federal funding.

 

 

* My personal addition to the clone request, should the powers that be decide to expand said Beckinsale line to that level of absurdity.

[NorthSideSox72]

CLOSING STATEMENT:

 

There many other subtopics and issues that could be discussed here. But despite the temptation to break new ground, I believe it is time to put a concise end to this particular debate. Therefore, I will do my best to be brief.

 

It has become clear that Mr. Flaxx and I are of basically the same mind when it comes to state and local funding of the arts. The difference between us lies in the issue of federal funding. Mr. Flaxx has agreed that federal funding for the arts cannot go without limit, and I have agreed that one cannot simply say "absolutely no" federal funding of the arts can be allowed. There are grey areas. The difference between us seems to boil down to where we propose to draw the "Beckinsale Line™"

 

As has been fleshed out in this thread, it is difficult or impossible to find guidance in the Constitution that would point the federal government towards funding the arts. This is not an issue of qualitatve value, but of the role of a specific level of government. The federal government was never intended to grant or create "happiness" - only to set the table for the pursuit of it. The legal and governmental definition of "welfare" clarifies this, as does the phrase "pursuit of happiness".

 

Federal grants to the NEA or similar organizations, while seemingly well-intended, are outside the lines. To put an already cash and debt-strapped government in a position of funding something obviously outside the intended scope of administration is wasteful, not to mention against the grain of the core concepts of our Constitutional federation.

 

The Beckinsale Line, like the jeans worn by its namesake, should run very close to the skin of the federal government. Our representatives in Congress have already added far too much fat to their waistlines. Now is the time to cinch in the belt and show some restraint. After all, neither the federal government nor any man or woman (Kate Beckinsale included) was meant to grow to be as unhealthy and obese as our government has become.

Edited January 30, 2006 by NorthSideSox72

[FlaSoxxJim]

CLOSING STATEMENT:

 

Would that I could promise such brevity with my closing statements. Though I will strive to remain on point, there are still some coverage gaps in our dialogue.

 

"Funding the arts" covers a lot of ground. Contemplating an end to that funding on a federal level threatens a lot more than what is initially obvious, as our discussion has revealed.

 

Federal art funding only began at the end of the 19th century, with justification then provided that art could be "educational and morally ennobling" (NYU Law School Brennan Center For Justice). Such justification argues that art may indeed be deemed capable of improving the welfare of American citizens.

 

The NEA Arts Education Fellowships recognize superior teachers of the performing, visual, literary, and media arts and provide them with independent study opportunities (typically 1-2 months in the summer) that ultimately will benefit the students of these exceptional teachers.

 

NEA provides critical startup and operational funding for institutions that rapidly become self-sustaining at state and local levels. Federal funding such as provided by NEA is one of the reasons why our country now has more than 300 professional municipal orchestras instead of the 50 in existence when the Endowment began.

 

Short of a complete end to federal funding for the arts, you have argued the need to show restraint in federal spending.

 

I'm all for fiscal restraint. For that matter, I believe NEA is a fine example of fiscal restraint in action. With a requested 2006 budget of $121 million and the 2000 US census figures (281,421,906 people on April 1 2000), the cost of funding NEA works out to less than 43 cents per individual. I'm not arguing against the idea that every tax dollar counts and that they should all be spent wisely. I am trying to provide some perspective.

 

In the wake of the 1989 Serrano/Mapplethorpe uproar and subsequent federal content restriction laws, the NEA became similarly constrained as far as who/what they can fund. Now the NEA gives more than 60% of funding to institutions over individual artists. For better or worse, this is one more guarantee that the tax dollars allocated to the NEA budget will be spent on programs and artists more acceptable to the American mainstream.

 

Finally, I'll reiterate that competitive NEA grant applications are reviewed by diverse panels of intelligent peers in the arts as well as by program administrators, and this is yet another level of scrutiny to ensure that grantees are deserving and that the Endowment program is run efficiently. Rather drawing a funding line by legislative fiat, NEA should continue to use expert applicant review panels to decide which organizations and individuals are most worthy of funding.

 

The federal expenditure on art pales in comparison to that of local governments, and is dwarfed by the contributions of private philanthropy. Thias is as it should be. But the federal government still has an important role to play in overall arts funding and support.