Re: Congressional vote on the NEH
Dave Postles (pot@leicester.ac.uk)
Sat, 7 Jan 1995 09:36:31 +0000
Mr. Zincavage, in his recent message regarding the inappropriateness
of a republic's using tax money to fund the arts, appears to establish
an interesting set of polarities. On the one hand, monarchies and
aristocracies, whatever their motives, preserve and enhance artistic
culture while the republic, with conservation of tax resources as its
summum bonum, eschews the public support of the arts and the intellect
-- all the virtues of the Zenith, Ohio boobocracy. In fact, he finds
taxing the mechanic to support the arts in a republic especially
reprehensible because it vitiates the republican presumption of "moral
equality" amongst its citizens. How arrogant it is to equate moral
equality with equality of access to the arts and culture.
While he may disagree with the appropriateness of supporting the arts,
Mr. Zincavage seems unaware of the significant democratizing of the arts
and intellectual activity that the NEA\NEH has provided. The very Tulsa
filling station operator who is his straw-man, may well listen to PBS
programming, may have found the resources of the NEA have brought more
little known country and western groups before large audiences than ever
before, or is perhaps a closet fan of the Met or a participant in one of
the many state-federal NEH programs to preserve local culture or history.
The common man, of whom this nation is made, is no fool and is as likely
to benefit from the cultural investment represented by NEA/NEH as is a
member of the elite.
I fear that Mr. Zincavage has confused a passion for tax reduction with
a principled argument for republican eschewal of tax supported arts and
culture. While it is always a bit dangerous to put modern arguments into the
mouths of historical figures, I wonder how Mr.Jefferson might have replied
to this sentiment.
Lamar M. Hill
Professor of History
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, CA
lhill@benfranklin.hnet.uci.edu