ThinkProgress: Mitt Romney started the primary campaign by suggesting that federal arts funding should be cut in half. Now, in an interview with Fortune Magazine, he’s gone a step further, and has said that as president, he would entirely eliminate the subsidies for PBS, and for the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities. That shift in his position might be more devastating to the people who benefit from those subsidies, both as employees and as audiences for the work supported by them. But it’s a move that, rather than clarifying Romney’s views on the proper scope of government, move him deeper into a dodge that reveals the fundamental unseriousness of beating up on the arts.
4 comments:
Rude.
It is interesting that this article begins as if it is going to discuss the issue of the cutting of arts funding in the country, but then mostly discusses the implications it means for a government official to address the issue at all: that they are avoiding the real conversation about what the government should fund. What would it mean if the government really only had a hand in private interests shouldn't control? I wish the article discussed further what that would mean instead of just listing some topics it would affect, such as control and regulation. What would happen to the arts if this came true and all of our government funding was cut? Honestly, I think there would be bigger issues about the other cuts that would occur.
Should the government be big and full of committees and cabinets that make decisions for the citizens regarding things like art and education or should it take a laissez faire attitude towards these issues and cut funding of these programs?
Regardless of your political allegance to any one idea as artists how can we not be appalled by the latter option? There are two posts this week about how arts can stimulate local economies. Where does that money come from? Arts have been on the chopping block every since the WPA was dissolved in the 40s. And now that a New Deal approach to economics is becoming even more unpopular the future of arts funding is in jeopardy. But this is no surprise and there has been talks of this in the blogspehere for quite sometime.
What makes this article particularly poignant is that this in an election year. It hopes to educate voters on policy that might not be openly discussed in either (doesn't it seem silly there are only 2) candidate's campaign programming. I posed the question of local issues connecting into national issues in my response to the article about Chicago's cultural plan. Cities are looking towards the arts to provide renaissance and opportunities that weren't once there. Unfortunately their national government doesnt seem to be on the same page. If you believe in democracy, you can change that.
I had not heard that Mitt Romney wanted to get rid of the arts funding as a whole and just leave those companies hanging. I hope that this gets more publicity and more people hear about this in the future. I know that there are a lot of organizations that will be feeling bad if they don’t get that money and would probably go under due to lack of financial support. The states will have to give more money out to help them survive. If not, a lot of people would become unemployed and be looking for work. We have all read that a lot of arts people are currently looking for work. I hope that he maybe rethinks the support of the arts if he becomes president and maybe try to just cut a little bit.
Post a Comment