David Zincavage writes:
>
> The United States was founded as a Republic. Where it is appropriate under
> monarchical and aristocratic governments for the state to fund the arts, or
> erect lavish public monuments, in order to enhance its glory, republican
> governments are morally obliged to dispense public monies with much
> greater thrift.
That moral claim needs justifying. The antithesis between 'aristocratic'
and 'republican' governments is false. As an historical claim about
republican governments in general, the claim is simply untrue: have you
ever heard of the Parthenon? The principles are, indeed, more appropriate
for the American republic, itself founded as a tax dodge, but even your
Founding Fathers honored them more in the breach than in the observance: I
seem to remember that Jefferson was quite keen on lavish public monuments,
and your country is still governed from them.
>
> This is not to say that scholarly research and artistic creation should
> not be esteemed or pursued in republics. But simply that these endeavors
> ought to draw upon private and voluntary philanthropy, which is far
> more likely to be available in a society less burdened by taxation.
>
A factual error. The reduction of taxation decreases voluntary
philanthropy, because the cost to the rich of such philanthropy increases
as taxation, and therefore the value of tax breaks to donors to charities,
is reduced. Moreover, Government attitudes partly set the tone of society:
if people believe that the Government feels no obligation to give, that
seems to lessen their own feeling of obligation to give privately.
Unlike your theory, this argument is borne out by the historical experience
of charitable giving and new foundations in Britain since the Thatcherites
began reducing direct taxation. I can't quote sources, but there have
been several surveys reported in the press.
> The new Congress will be acting correctly in eliminating Federal involvement
> in the Humanities, and historical scholars should view these developments
> objectively in their capacity as philosophers,
Historians are not philosophers. It is for philosophers to make speculative
deductions from high principles, for historians to investigate whether such
conclusions have actually been followed in practice. If historians are not paid
to do that, philosophers will continue in error.
> rather than through the prism
> of narrow and crass self interest,
Do you suppose that the gas-station owner in Tulsa does not view the
matter through the prism of narrow and crass self interest? If it is right
for him/her to do so, why is it wrong for your academic colleagues to do so?
All evidence shows that most people are unwilling voluntarily to pay
enough for work of long-term use to their descendants, although they are
very happy to use the results of other people's payments in the past. Is
it honorable to enjoy the fruits of past tax-funded efforts while being
unwilling to contribute in taxes to similar benefits for future
generations? Is your Tulsa gas-station owner on a privately-funded road or
a publicly-funded one?
The result of policies of tax-reduction in Britain is that arts funding is
to be met increasingly from the National Lottery, a 'voluntary' but
largely fraudulent and thoroughly inefficient tax which falls primarily on
poor people like your gas-station owner. The commissions which decide on the
spending will have less accountability to Parliament than did previous
statutory bodies.
The public gets less value for money through 'voluntary' fund-raising
activities for non-profit-making programs than it does for properly
audited programs funded through taxation, because the real overheads of
fundraising can easily consume 30 per cent or more of the income. It is
fraudulent to ask people for money for a cause and then to use that money
to pay for your time requesting further sums from the next lot of
potential donors. But unless you do so you cannot continue the work.
Moreover the 'stop-go' nature of voluntarily funded programs is very
wasteful of expertise.
Much 'private' funding comes from the vanity of company directors who
use shareholders' money for it without consulting them. There is _less_
accountability there than with a tax-funded program; and if all companies
are doing it, then there's no less coercion either.
> and applaud this return to the republican
> ideals of the founding fathers. It is regrettable that so philistine a
> disregard of republican principles is so common in the academic community.
Not being a republican, I admit no obligation to regard republican
principles. I just hope that my American colleagues can keep their snouts
firmly in the trough. They are no doubt runts by U.S. public-spending
standards: it would not be surprising to learn that US public
funding for the humanities is peanuts compared with public funding of
other initiatives.
Christopher
C.R.J. Currie Victoria County History
ccurrie@sas.ac.uk Institute of Historical Research
ccurrie@ihr.sas.ac.uk University of London, UK
The Institute of Historical Research is a member-Institute of the
School of Advanced Study of the University of London.