I like that idea. With music and arts being removed entirely from many schools (the choice seems to be between cutting p.e. or the arts), this would be a wise use of say... half the funds. The caveat being, if that's even enough to make a difference. E.g., if each school only rec'd a few thousand, there wouldn't be much of an impact. Whereas if it helped to support magnet schools, it could be very helpful.
I'm curious, why do you see it as an election year tactic? What electoral block to you see Bush targeting with this? As you've implied, artists aren't generally disposed to vote republican- do you really think a few million bucks for the NEA is likely to sway many of them to our team? I don't see it, and I think it's more likely this is simply an issue W believes in, or perhaps Ms. W? I only wish those on the left could find it in their hearts to offer some modest praise for this initiative w/out the obligatory bashing of Bush on some other account. No one will suspect you secretly approve of the Iraq war if you support Bush's NEA initiative! Artists are like most people in that we're not single issue voters. Although I support the arts, and art education in our schools, and support federal funding for the arts, it's not the be all and end all of my existence. I realize there are voters for whom one issue is paramount (abortion anyone?), but most people decide who they will vote for based on a range of issues. For me the most important are current National Security (this close to 9/11 how could it not be), tax cuts (as the soon to be father of two children anything that puts more money on my pocket now is a definite plus, and education reform, for the same reasons. Similarly, as the child of two doctors, and the brother of another, I favor tort reform (one of the primary reason health care costs are out of control is the cost of malpractice insurance, driven by frivilous lawsuits filed by John Edwards and Co.). In each instance, I think the republican party has thought more intently about the problem and is willing to look at solutions that challenge the status quo. The democratic party seems to me to be the party of the stasis, and these are areas where radical change is called for. It's not that I don't care about gay marriage (for), the death penalty (for), gun control (for), abortion (generally against, quasi-prochoice, although i'm in favor of some restrictions, and btw, i think Roe is bad law and a mistake i hope is not repeated in the current debate over gay marriage), it's that these issues are not front burner issues for me. The deficit is an issue, but raising taxes, which would have the effect of stopping the nascent recovery in its tacks, reducing revenues that could be used to pay down the deficit, seems a nonsensical way to attack the problem. far better to reduce spending and neither party seems particularly interested in taking this tack. Lastly, I absolutely agree that we should increase arts education in this country. whether that calls for additional funding is an open question. IIRC, the U.S. spend more per child on education (the federal level) than any other industrialized country. How can it be that many schools are broke, while many others have plenty of cash? I know the answer, but the solution doesn't call more spending yet more of our tax dollars on education. Rather, this might be an instance where a bit of socialism is called for, to each according to his needs.
Timing, mostly. Do you think that the administration sincerely hopes to raise the standard of living for illegal immigrants, coincidentally around election year? (I have to suppress laughter typing that sentence.) Neither of us can telepathically know what our president's thoughts and motives are, so I guess I go with my impressions. You think this may be a sincere desire on his part to help art in america. I can't fathom it, personally, but that's just me. If it helps at all, I do think he was dead-set to unseat Saddam from the start because he truly believed/believes it was the right thing to do, not just to get contracts for Haliburton. I've got to agree, this NEA move doesn't make sense- it further alienates the right-wingers and financial conservatives, and won't win the votes of any of the artistic-leaning liberals (like we're a big percentage of the vote anyway); but I simply can't believe in an altruistic motive here. I wonder if the administration's alienation of financial conservatives is similar to what the democrats do to minorities: make promises, and break them, knowing that the group will never vote for the other party. Like in Bullworth: "What are you going to do? Vote republican?" I wonder if the super spend-happy administration and congress can go on without conscience, knowing that their constituency will never vote democratic anyway, or really see the hypocrisy in pointing to the liberals as big spenders.
Apparently, the NEA has changed a little bit. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/kimball200401291138.asp
appreciate that- a malcontent. bush still doesnt get my vote, even after I got a Federal Pell Grant and my unemployed actor friends received an extension of their unemployment checks, its tough to be passionate about art when no one gives a crap. way to go bush.
