What will be better about society if the NEA did not support artists?
I know that you have a pragmatic view of government services so I'll spare you the Constitutional stuff and offer a common sense response.
The amount of money the NEA awards as grants is, as you said, a pittance in Washington terms. I don't have any particular knowledge of this program and I'm not sufficiently interested to research it, but I think it's safe to say they spend more than a pittance to give out their pittance. There are the criteria and the advisory groups and the whole grant process. And on and on. A couple of posters have mentioned the problems with determining criteria. Then there's the potential for gaming the system. But most of all there's the fact that, rightly or wrongly, this program really ticks off a lot of people. It's a real hot button. Many of these people have guns and a bad attitude. Lots of them write letters. Do you know how many feds with a six figure salary typically pore over each constituent letter and its response? You don't want to know.
Are there really deserving artists that get support? Maybe some. Does their art enrich us all? Maybe some. Could they get support elsewhere. Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't know. Probably.
The bottom line, to me, is that we have a program that may be marginally effective, is probably quite inefficient, may or may not be necessary, and really ticks off a lot of people with guns and bad attitudes.
I don't recall if the NEA was on Tim McVeigh's or the Unabomber's list of grievances or not, but do we really want to risk that for so little return? Repercussions of that magnitude are unlikely, but the animus this program creates contributes to the divisiveness that really hurts us, unnecessarily IMO. I don't know if a majority of people support this program or not. Maybe someone's done a survey. I'd bet that most people either hate it or are pretty indifferent. After all, it's a small program and doesn't cost each of us much. In tax dollars, that is. What's the harm?
You've talked before about the value of redistribution of wealth as a means of avoiding unrest. I suggest that this is similar. Why contribute to the vitriol? Why not spend our tax dollars instead on those programs for which we have a reasonable consensus?
Your question was how would society be better without this program. I'd prefer peace and quiet to another piece of performance art.
Karen |
