Rush Limbaugh is driving the Republican Party nuts. Ha! Of course, most Republicans who actually hold elected office won't admit it. But sober realists, of which there still are some in the GOP, must be just tearing their hair out.
What they don't realize is that Rush Limbaugh is the ultimate embodiment of conservative ideology. He is acting according to what is in his own short-term best interests. That is a basic organizing principle of capitalism and conservatism: the individual must have the maximum possible freedom to act according to their own best interests.
The problem for the GOP is that what is in Limbaugh's best interest in the short term is NOT necessarily in the best interest of the Republican Party in the long term. Limbaugh's perspective is the next few days. He wants material for his daily talk show. He could care less about what happens six months from now, a year from now, 5 years from now. He wants to make money right now. So he denounces Obama, or "feminazis," or any famous Congressional Democrat, in strong terms, because the louder and more obnoxious he is, the greater the entertainment value for his listeners.
Rush Limbaugh has absolutely no interest whatsoever in any kind of reasoned discourse about policy. That's because he has no interest whatsoever in policy. Politics is just fodder for his ranting, that's all. He doesn't care about finding the best solutions to various problems. He would actually prefer that we NOT find solutions, because he thrives on chaos and confusion. The more nervous and scared people are, the better he does. If life were perfectly calm, he would have no business.
There are many members of the traditional GOP coalition who desperately want to work with Obama. There is hardly a business in this country that doesn't have problems with healthcare costs. Many, many members of the military, and their families, desperately want the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to end quickly. Large numbers of businesses want to see increased spending on infrastructure and education, and are willing to pay higher taxes to get that.
These people are not necessarily Limbaugh's audience. He doesn't care about the reasonable, moderate Republicans, the ones who are willing to vote for Obama because he's a decent, responsible human being. All he cares about is feeding his dittoheads' addiction to anger. He's like a drug dealer who gets people addicted to a drug, and then keeps feeding it to them.
His audience's addiction to anger distorts their perspective. Anything that threatens their addiction - like, saying the chairman of the RNC challenging Rush's influence - is met with the trigger-happy reaction of people denied a fix.
Thus we have yet another example of the ironies afflicting conservatism: a man who embodies the ideals of capitalism - that individuals should be allowed the maximum possible freedom to act according to their own best interests - is wreaking havoc on the GOP precisely because what is in his best interests is contrary to the best interests of the party as a whole. Bwahahahaha!
There is, fortunately for the rest of us, a more powerful force at work in this country's politics than Rush Limbaugh, an organizing principle which encourages people to recognize that sometimes it is their best interests to understand what is in the best interests of other people. This organizing principle is called "democracy." It is vastly more powerful than Rush Limbaugh.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Obama is a socialist: discuss, debate, or ridicule?
Conservatives keep trying to call Obama a socialist. This is, of course, ludicrous. I don't know the precise definition of "socialism." And I'm not going to try to find out what it is, because I seriously doubt that there is one definition of "socialism." For now, let's just say that "socialism" means the government controls at least some of the means of production in a country, and heavily regulates the rest. Right now there is a raging debate about whether or not banks should be nationalized. I don't know.
What I do know is that Obama is not a socialist. He is not interested in the government controlling or owning large companies. Not his cup of tea. Harold Meyerson of the WaPo, and once upon a time of the LA Weekly, has a great and wonderful column about this topic, with some of the history of socialism in this country, and some of the history of socialism used by Republicans as a slander against Democrats. Meyerson argues, quite convincingly, that the villains in this drama are capitalists. Then again, it's easy to be quite convincing when the arguments in your favor consist of most of what's happening in the world.
One aspect of this attempt to pummel Obama with this vaguely ominous criticism is that they seem to be using it because their standard bogeyman for years - "liberal" - apparently is no longer working. Maybe the fact that Obama is not in the least bit afraid of being called a liberal has something to do with it.
Conservatives have their own definition of "socialist." It is roughly this: a socialist is someone who is going to take things from me - my money, my freedom, my guns, my superior socioeconomic position bestowed upon me by the accident of birth - and give it to someone less deserving. That "less deserving person" is someone who they think don't works as hard as they do, and who whines a lot.
The irony of their own status as whiners is utterly lost on conservatives. As are many instances of irony.
What I do know is that Obama is not a socialist. He is not interested in the government controlling or owning large companies. Not his cup of tea. Harold Meyerson of the WaPo, and once upon a time of the LA Weekly, has a great and wonderful column about this topic, with some of the history of socialism in this country, and some of the history of socialism used by Republicans as a slander against Democrats. Meyerson argues, quite convincingly, that the villains in this drama are capitalists. Then again, it's easy to be quite convincing when the arguments in your favor consist of most of what's happening in the world.
So, for conservatives searching for the culprits behind this transformation of capitalism: Despite our best efforts, it wasn't Bernie [Sanders] and it wasn't me. It was your own damn system.But don't worry, he reminds us, Obama, like FDR before him, will save capitalism from itself. After which salvation, of course, conservatives will be just as ungrateful as ever.
One aspect of this attempt to pummel Obama with this vaguely ominous criticism is that they seem to be using it because their standard bogeyman for years - "liberal" - apparently is no longer working. Maybe the fact that Obama is not in the least bit afraid of being called a liberal has something to do with it.
Conservatives have their own definition of "socialist." It is roughly this: a socialist is someone who is going to take things from me - my money, my freedom, my guns, my superior socioeconomic position bestowed upon me by the accident of birth - and give it to someone less deserving. That "less deserving person" is someone who they think don't works as hard as they do, and who whines a lot.
The irony of their own status as whiners is utterly lost on conservatives. As are many instances of irony.
John McCain still obsessing about earmarks
John McCain is still obsessed with earmarks. Apparently he stood on the floor of the Senate denouncing them, and denounced them on Twitter as well. I have a hard time picturing this - did he use his own BlackBerry? Props to the man for joining the 21st centuy, I suppose. Maureen Dowd is impressed, sort of, and gets in some digs at
I think I finally understand why John McCain focuses so much on earmarks: he doesn't have any big ideas. He doesn't think in terms of grand theories. He thinks he does, crusading for campaign finance reform, and I'm willing to give him some credit for thinking big for himself, what with running for president and all. But in terms of policy, his strongest card is an intense aversion to the most trivial details in the budget.
One item Dowd cites from McCain's Twitterfest is an item for $650,000 in "beaver management." Yes, that sounds ridiculous. A reader wrote to Andrew Sullivan, however, and explained that this is legit; beavers have the ability to reroute streams, which can wreak havoc on roads and homes.
It's time to defend earmarks. Sullivan's reader got me thinking. $650,000 is a drop in a drop in a drop in the bucket in the federal budget. But it's a huge amount of money to whoever is trying to control these beavers in North Carolina and Mississippi.
Someone had to take the time to apply for this earmark. They had to draft a proposal. They had to crunch the numbers. They had to get approval for the project from their local city council, or state legislators, or regional wildlife management agency, to do whatever they are doing to manage beavers. They probably looked for funding from the city, state, or private agencies. They had to get the attention of whatever Representative or Senator sponsored it, which means that they had to get the attention of some local officials. They have to work with the local press. By the time this gets to be an earmark, a lot of work has been done to vet this proposal. It has survived lots of competition.
For every earmark that is in this budget, I would be willing to bet that there are 100 that were rejected at some point along the way. Every single American can think of something that they would like the government to be spending their money on in their neighborhood. It might be as simple as potholes, as complex as high-speed rail. It might be a high school gym that needs a new roof, it might be a bridge that needs to be rebuilt, it might be a town hall damaged by a tornado. Every single American can think of something. Every single American would love to have an earmark attached to that problem. But very, very few Americans are going to benefit from managing beavers in a few places in the South.
So John McCain ridicules the needs of the few, pretending to be defending the interests of the many. What he's really doing, however, is encouraging Americans to think of themselves as isolated individuals, alientated from the collective, their interests thwarted by the demands of people remote from them.
Take out your wallet, Senator McCain. Look at a one dollar bill. See that eagle on the back? See that ribbon in his beak? You might want to remember what it says: E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. We're all in this together, Senator. Some of us are as eager as beavers to make it all work.
I think I finally understand why John McCain focuses so much on earmarks: he doesn't have any big ideas. He doesn't think in terms of grand theories. He thinks he does, crusading for campaign finance reform, and I'm willing to give him some credit for thinking big for himself, what with running for president and all. But in terms of policy, his strongest card is an intense aversion to the most trivial details in the budget.
One item Dowd cites from McCain's Twitterfest is an item for $650,000 in "beaver management." Yes, that sounds ridiculous. A reader wrote to Andrew Sullivan, however, and explained that this is legit; beavers have the ability to reroute streams, which can wreak havoc on roads and homes.
It's time to defend earmarks. Sullivan's reader got me thinking. $650,000 is a drop in a drop in a drop in the bucket in the federal budget. But it's a huge amount of money to whoever is trying to control these beavers in North Carolina and Mississippi.
Someone had to take the time to apply for this earmark. They had to draft a proposal. They had to crunch the numbers. They had to get approval for the project from their local city council, or state legislators, or regional wildlife management agency, to do whatever they are doing to manage beavers. They probably looked for funding from the city, state, or private agencies. They had to get the attention of whatever Representative or Senator sponsored it, which means that they had to get the attention of some local officials. They have to work with the local press. By the time this gets to be an earmark, a lot of work has been done to vet this proposal. It has survived lots of competition.
For every earmark that is in this budget, I would be willing to bet that there are 100 that were rejected at some point along the way. Every single American can think of something that they would like the government to be spending their money on in their neighborhood. It might be as simple as potholes, as complex as high-speed rail. It might be a high school gym that needs a new roof, it might be a bridge that needs to be rebuilt, it might be a town hall damaged by a tornado. Every single American can think of something. Every single American would love to have an earmark attached to that problem. But very, very few Americans are going to benefit from managing beavers in a few places in the South.
So John McCain ridicules the needs of the few, pretending to be defending the interests of the many. What he's really doing, however, is encouraging Americans to think of themselves as isolated individuals, alientated from the collective, their interests thwarted by the demands of people remote from them.
Take out your wallet, Senator McCain. Look at a one dollar bill. See that eagle on the back? See that ribbon in his beak? You might want to remember what it says: E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. We're all in this together, Senator. Some of us are as eager as beavers to make it all work.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Obama Adjustment Syndrome and the OLC memos
I think I am suffering from Obama Adjustment Syndrome. The primary symptom of this syndrome is an inability to react to major policy initiatives from the Obama Administration in real time, because they come at you fast and furious. This was particularly acute last week, when I was sort of chilling after the Oscars. I blinked, and suddenly I missed Obama's major address to Congress, the not-quite-SOTU. So I started watching the video of that online.
Then all of a sudden there was the budget. OK, let me get a grip . . . Wham! We're pulling out of Iraq. Wow, that's great, can I get some details? . . . Bling! We're bailing out another one of the financial companies.
Plus there were a few other things that I'm sure were hugely important and that I have been waiting years for but that I can't quite recall.
Today it's the release of the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) memos. On this issue, attentoin must be paid to mcjoan at DailyKos, and Andrew Sullivan. And I must pay attention.
We cannot be thankful enough that the Obama Administration has begun to expose the criminal wrongdoings of the Bush Administration, and we cannot be too harsh in our condemnation of the crimes that were perpetuated by the Bushies, particularly Dick Cheney, David Addington, and John Yoo.
I have heard many calls for various levels of investigation into what happened under Bush. I have to admit that I have been somewhat reluctant to join the chorus, because I think there is a real temptation to "criminalize political differences," i.e. to make prosecutorial mountains out of the molehills of differences of opinion.
But when the conduct in question is criminal, then we have not just the right, but the responsibility to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute. We have done so before, during Watergate, and our democracy survived.
We are responsible in this respect not to ourselves or our constituents, but to our system of justice. We have certain responsibilities to democracy.
Democracy gives us the freedom to experiment with our politics, but then holds us accountable when those experiments fail. We are in such a moment right now.
In this democracy, we all have equal opportunities within this system, and we are all considered equal before the law. The problem with this is that we don't know how to ensure that all are equal before the law, and we have different opinions about what that means. Those in power tend to have very different ideas about what constitutes justice than those who are not in power.
The system works as long as enough of us believe that the system itself, despite all its flaws, is still better than any other system for giving us the closest we can come to equal opportunities. Essential to that ideal is the system of checks and balances. As long as most people have at least some voice within the system, they have an incentive to try and make the system work.
I have written before that the American system of democracy was designed to withstand the maximum damage that can be inflicted on it, either from outside, or from within. The Bush Administration's misdeeds have been one of the attempts to inflict severe damage on the system of American democracy. The release of these OLC memos demonstrates that. Unlike almost every other politician in our system, Bush and his cronies did not believe in the system of checks and balances. They did not believe that all people are equal before the law. They believed that the President, and, by extension, those who worked for him, was above the law. Perhaps the hideous implication of this idea is that it grants to the president the right to decide who is outside the law, who does not deserve the protection of the law. That is the definition of a dictatorship.
Investigating the abuses of the Bush Administration does not constitute "criminalizing political differences."
Criminalizing political differences is what the Bush Administration did.
Then all of a sudden there was the budget. OK, let me get a grip . . . Wham! We're pulling out of Iraq. Wow, that's great, can I get some details? . . . Bling! We're bailing out another one of the financial companies.
Plus there were a few other things that I'm sure were hugely important and that I have been waiting years for but that I can't quite recall.
Today it's the release of the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) memos. On this issue, attentoin must be paid to mcjoan at DailyKos, and Andrew Sullivan. And I must pay attention.
We cannot be thankful enough that the Obama Administration has begun to expose the criminal wrongdoings of the Bush Administration, and we cannot be too harsh in our condemnation of the crimes that were perpetuated by the Bushies, particularly Dick Cheney, David Addington, and John Yoo.
I have heard many calls for various levels of investigation into what happened under Bush. I have to admit that I have been somewhat reluctant to join the chorus, because I think there is a real temptation to "criminalize political differences," i.e. to make prosecutorial mountains out of the molehills of differences of opinion.
But when the conduct in question is criminal, then we have not just the right, but the responsibility to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute. We have done so before, during Watergate, and our democracy survived.
We are responsible in this respect not to ourselves or our constituents, but to our system of justice. We have certain responsibilities to democracy.
Democracy gives us the freedom to experiment with our politics, but then holds us accountable when those experiments fail. We are in such a moment right now.
In this democracy, we all have equal opportunities within this system, and we are all considered equal before the law. The problem with this is that we don't know how to ensure that all are equal before the law, and we have different opinions about what that means. Those in power tend to have very different ideas about what constitutes justice than those who are not in power.
The system works as long as enough of us believe that the system itself, despite all its flaws, is still better than any other system for giving us the closest we can come to equal opportunities. Essential to that ideal is the system of checks and balances. As long as most people have at least some voice within the system, they have an incentive to try and make the system work.
I have written before that the American system of democracy was designed to withstand the maximum damage that can be inflicted on it, either from outside, or from within. The Bush Administration's misdeeds have been one of the attempts to inflict severe damage on the system of American democracy. The release of these OLC memos demonstrates that. Unlike almost every other politician in our system, Bush and his cronies did not believe in the system of checks and balances. They did not believe that all people are equal before the law. They believed that the President, and, by extension, those who worked for him, was above the law. Perhaps the hideous implication of this idea is that it grants to the president the right to decide who is outside the law, who does not deserve the protection of the law. That is the definition of a dictatorship.
Investigating the abuses of the Bush Administration does not constitute "criminalizing political differences."
Criminalizing political differences is what the Bush Administration did.
Satire sacrilege: Spinal Tap goes acoustic
It's been 25 years since we learned the meaning of "This one goes to 11," and heard the tales of a certain collection of wayward souls masquerading as a band and calling themselves Spinal Tap. Now the boys are going out on tour. But this time, they're going way back to their early years. They are playing acoustic. No metal mayhem this time around. What's more, I'm not even sure they are going to be in character.
Of course, one implication of going acoustic is that they won't be able to go to 11. Michael McKean confirms that they will, in fact, only be going to 8 1/2. Why that number specifically?
And it's still funny after all these years.
If you listen to the music here, it's actually quite nice. As Marty DiBergi says, it's pretty.
No word on who they are going to get on drums this time around:
"We've never gone out as ourselves," Shearer said Monday from the House of Blues in West Hollywood, where he was accompanied by Guest and McKean at a news conference unveiling the tour. "So we've been holding lots of meetings trying to figure out who we are."Considering that it is Harry Shearer who is saying that, I am going to assume that the bit of existential humor at the end there is intentional.
Of course, one implication of going acoustic is that they won't be able to go to 11. Michael McKean confirms that they will, in fact, only be going to 8 1/2. Why that number specifically?
"It worked for Fellini."
And it's still funny after all these years.
If you listen to the music here, it's actually quite nice. As Marty DiBergi says, it's pretty.
No word on who they are going to get on drums this time around:
A very British take on the crisis
I am poaching more from Andrew Sullivan today. This is apparently a British comedy show that I have never heard of, with a very funny take on the crisis:
Jonah Goldberg hearts Rush Limbaugh
As a Democrat, you just have to love the influence that Rush Limbaugh has over the Republican party. An obnoxious jerk running roughshod over anyone who disagrees with him. Great for party discipline! Not so good for encouraging dissent, honest debate, and open dialogue.
Jonah Goldberg, the conservative columnist for the LA Times, defends Limbaugh in today's column. Like Rush, he wants Obama's attempts to turn this country into a "European welfare state." It's a tragic state of affairs for our loyal opposition when this kind of argument by cliche counts as an intellectually sophisticated critique. Amazingly, Goldberg understands that Limbaugh's current perch on top of the GOP is a gift to the Democrats. Sure, he's rallying the few troops left on that side of the aisle, but he's alienating independents and moderate Republicans, and it's pretty much a net positive for Dems all the way around.
Goldberg defends conservatives by reiterating that they are bound to do things a certain way by, well, tradition:
What is most amusing are Goldberg's attempts to somehow find a middle ground between Limbaugh and his critics on the right. Of which there actually are some! I do have to give Goldberg credit for quoting some of the few dissidents who dare to point out that Limbaugh is wreaking havoc on his own party. But then Goldberg makes a godawful pathetic attempt to propose a solution. What is it? Get ready. He wants to bring back Firing Line. He wants to reincarnate William F. Buckley.
Right, because what this country really needs is another Sunday morning talk show about politics.
And, of course, the best antidote to Rush Limbaugh, a rude, loudmouthed populist who broadcasts several hours a day, several days a week, and reaches millions, is to bring back a preppy Northeastern elitist snob. Once a week. On PBS.
Goldberg writes that bringing back Firing Line would be
And here we find a fault line in the Republican party: conservatives believe in tradition, but capitalists believe in innovation. Guess which side of that divide Jonah Goldberg falls on.
I have a suggestion for Mr. Goldberg: If you want to encourage civility of discourse and honest debate of policy, you might want to start with your own column.
Jonah Goldberg, the conservative columnist for the LA Times, defends Limbaugh in today's column. Like Rush, he wants Obama's attempts to turn this country into a "European welfare state." It's a tragic state of affairs for our loyal opposition when this kind of argument by cliche counts as an intellectually sophisticated critique. Amazingly, Goldberg understands that Limbaugh's current perch on top of the GOP is a gift to the Democrats. Sure, he's rallying the few troops left on that side of the aisle, but he's alienating independents and moderate Republicans, and it's pretty much a net positive for Dems all the way around.
Goldberg defends conservatives by reiterating that they are bound to do things a certain way by, well, tradition:
I could swear that conservatives opposing the expansion of big government is what conservatives do. It's Aesopian. The scorpion must sting the frog. The conservative must object to socialized medicine.Except, of course, when said expansion of big government is being done by a Republican. Or does the abrogation of the separation of powers and the claim of virtually unlimited power of the executive branch not count as an expansion of government?
What is most amusing are Goldberg's attempts to somehow find a middle ground between Limbaugh and his critics on the right. Of which there actually are some! I do have to give Goldberg credit for quoting some of the few dissidents who dare to point out that Limbaugh is wreaking havoc on his own party. But then Goldberg makes a godawful pathetic attempt to propose a solution. What is it? Get ready. He wants to bring back Firing Line. He wants to reincarnate William F. Buckley.
Right, because what this country really needs is another Sunday morning talk show about politics.
And, of course, the best antidote to Rush Limbaugh, a rude, loudmouthed populist who broadcasts several hours a day, several days a week, and reaches millions, is to bring back a preppy Northeastern elitist snob. Once a week. On PBS.
Goldberg writes that bringing back Firing Line would be
the kind of entrepreneurial government innovation even right-wingers could get behind.How ridiculous is this? Resuscitating a program that started decades ago and lasted for 33 years is, for Jonah Goldberg, "entrepreneurial." Even with his tongue in cheek this is absurd.
And here we find a fault line in the Republican party: conservatives believe in tradition, but capitalists believe in innovation. Guess which side of that divide Jonah Goldberg falls on.
I have a suggestion for Mr. Goldberg: If you want to encourage civility of discourse and honest debate of policy, you might want to start with your own column.
Elections today in Los Angeles!
There are elections today in Los Angeles. More democracy! Find your polling place here. I'm voting for Antonio Villaraigosa for Mayor, because he's done a decent job. Some newspapers have complained that he hasn't risen to his potential, and that he is focused more on his next campaign than on his current job.
I think Antonio has done a good job just keeping LA going during this crisis. His school reforms haven't gone as far as we would all like, but that's also a huge job. He's gotten the Subway To The Sea off the ground, which is a major accomplishment. Unfortunately, we won't see the results of that for a long time. His best quality is just his sheer enthusiasm. There is something to be said for a politician who puts his heart and soul into improving the quality of life for his constituents. Say what you will about his policies, you can't question his dedication or his professionalism. As for his campaigning for the higher office; he will probably be running for either senator or governor very soon. But an essential part of his campaign is how well he runs the city today. If you don't like the fact that he's spending more time running for senator or governor than being mayor, send a message and vote against him in that next election. I do agree with his critics who think that he should have participated in mayoral debates. None of his competitors were serious candidates, but he did have nine of them. You would think that the Mayor of Los Angeles would understand that he has a certain responsibility to provide his constituents with some entertainment value. Particularly during a campaign.
As for the rest of the offices, I just use the LA Times endorsements. The one contentious ballot measure is Measure B, which would encourage the use of solar power in LA. That sounds like a great thing, but I've read too many criticisms of it as a power grab by the electrician's union (installations of solar power facilities would have to be by the union). Laura Chick has reached the end of her term limits, which is too bad; she's been a great Controller. Yet another great reason to oppose term limits, the stupidest idea currently inflicted on American democracy. On the other hand, I am NOT going to miss Rocky Delgadillo as City Attorney. He's had something of a bizarre tenure, which I don't even want to think about.
I think Antonio has done a good job just keeping LA going during this crisis. His school reforms haven't gone as far as we would all like, but that's also a huge job. He's gotten the Subway To The Sea off the ground, which is a major accomplishment. Unfortunately, we won't see the results of that for a long time. His best quality is just his sheer enthusiasm. There is something to be said for a politician who puts his heart and soul into improving the quality of life for his constituents. Say what you will about his policies, you can't question his dedication or his professionalism. As for his campaigning for the higher office; he will probably be running for either senator or governor very soon. But an essential part of his campaign is how well he runs the city today. If you don't like the fact that he's spending more time running for senator or governor than being mayor, send a message and vote against him in that next election. I do agree with his critics who think that he should have participated in mayoral debates. None of his competitors were serious candidates, but he did have nine of them. You would think that the Mayor of Los Angeles would understand that he has a certain responsibility to provide his constituents with some entertainment value. Particularly during a campaign.
As for the rest of the offices, I just use the LA Times endorsements. The one contentious ballot measure is Measure B, which would encourage the use of solar power in LA. That sounds like a great thing, but I've read too many criticisms of it as a power grab by the electrician's union (installations of solar power facilities would have to be by the union). Laura Chick has reached the end of her term limits, which is too bad; she's been a great Controller. Yet another great reason to oppose term limits, the stupidest idea currently inflicted on American democracy. On the other hand, I am NOT going to miss Rocky Delgadillo as City Attorney. He's had something of a bizarre tenure, which I don't even want to think about.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Quote of the day
"I want [American] athletes and artists to be total international badasses."
-Rachel Maddow, in an LA Times article asking various entertainers, artists, athletes, and other public figures (I don't want to include Ann Coulter in any of those categories) what they would do if they ran the NEA.
It's an interesting range of opinions. Bill Maher would abolish it; Kareem Abdul-Jabar and Tom Hayden would replicate what FDR did with the New Deal, asking artists to catalog what is happening in the country today.
I would direct more of the funding straight into school, particularly elementary schools. I would give some funding for individual artists to utterly non-controversial people, like quilters. For artists that create art with a potential payoff, I would not give them grants, I would make investments. I would offer them funding in return for an equity stake in their project. Any profits that are made from these investments would be returned to the funding pot.
For example, J.K. Rowling won a grant for 8,000 pounds from the Scottish Arts Council so she could continue writing the Harry Potter books. Imagine if they received even 2% of her royalties? That would probably fund the Scottish Arts Council for the next decade.
There are several elements of this debate that are always overlooked. We already subsidize the arts in lots of ways. The fact that contributions to arts organizations are tax deductible generates far more income for the arts than the NEA ever will. The same is true of contributions to educational organizations. Everybody in film school pays for their thesis project films with charitable contributions.
Corporations also subsidize the arts in indirect ways. Lots of movie and TV stars appear on stage in live theater productions. Financially, this makes no sense. Gwyneth Paltrow can make more money in one day on a film set than she can make in a month on Broadway. Of course, if Gwyneth Paltrow is in a play on Broadway, the play will make more money than it will with a non-Oscar winning actress, so it's great for the play's producers. But why does Gwyneth Paltrow or Al Pacino or Laurence Fishburne do theater? Because it's much more fun, and sometimes much more artistically rewarding, than a film. An actress on a film set may be there for 12 hours a day, but will probably only record one minute of dialogue, and may actually only work for a couple of hours a day - the rest is spent setting up the lights, the cameras, the set, etc. In theater, actors spent most of their time actually acting.
Try this experiment: walk through a large bookstore, say Borders or Barnes and Noble. Almost all of them have pictures on the cover. Artists were paid to create those. Many of those artists will take the money they make from designing book jackets and create their own art. Sort of like Gwyneth Paltrow.
And it isn't just the Gwyneth Paltrows and Jeremy Pivens in the movie and TV industries who will take advantage of their large paychecks to fulfill their own artistic ambitions. See the list of 500 people in the credits in your average blockbuster? A quarter of those people may have screenplays they're trying to sell. Some of them might be aspiring directors who have directed short films. Some of them probably play in a band.
So that's what I would do if I ran the NEA: give money to museums and orchestras, the kind of groups that benefit a large number of people, and then give money to kids, because the return on investment when you inspire a child to be more creative is incalculable.
But I wouldn't worry too much about the adults. In a world of 500 cable channels, satellite radio, hundreds of millions of Web sites and cheap video cameras, I'm not worried about the state of the arts in the United States. I agree with Rachel Maddow, but I think the best thing the government can do promote the arts in this country is insure that we have the freedom necessary to express ourselves, keep the economy going, make sure every kid gets the best possible education, and then get the hell out of the way.
-Rachel Maddow, in an LA Times article asking various entertainers, artists, athletes, and other public figures (I don't want to include Ann Coulter in any of those categories) what they would do if they ran the NEA.
It's an interesting range of opinions. Bill Maher would abolish it; Kareem Abdul-Jabar and Tom Hayden would replicate what FDR did with the New Deal, asking artists to catalog what is happening in the country today.
I would direct more of the funding straight into school, particularly elementary schools. I would give some funding for individual artists to utterly non-controversial people, like quilters. For artists that create art with a potential payoff, I would not give them grants, I would make investments. I would offer them funding in return for an equity stake in their project. Any profits that are made from these investments would be returned to the funding pot.
For example, J.K. Rowling won a grant for 8,000 pounds from the Scottish Arts Council so she could continue writing the Harry Potter books. Imagine if they received even 2% of her royalties? That would probably fund the Scottish Arts Council for the next decade.
There are several elements of this debate that are always overlooked. We already subsidize the arts in lots of ways. The fact that contributions to arts organizations are tax deductible generates far more income for the arts than the NEA ever will. The same is true of contributions to educational organizations. Everybody in film school pays for their thesis project films with charitable contributions.
Corporations also subsidize the arts in indirect ways. Lots of movie and TV stars appear on stage in live theater productions. Financially, this makes no sense. Gwyneth Paltrow can make more money in one day on a film set than she can make in a month on Broadway. Of course, if Gwyneth Paltrow is in a play on Broadway, the play will make more money than it will with a non-Oscar winning actress, so it's great for the play's producers. But why does Gwyneth Paltrow or Al Pacino or Laurence Fishburne do theater? Because it's much more fun, and sometimes much more artistically rewarding, than a film. An actress on a film set may be there for 12 hours a day, but will probably only record one minute of dialogue, and may actually only work for a couple of hours a day - the rest is spent setting up the lights, the cameras, the set, etc. In theater, actors spent most of their time actually acting.
Try this experiment: walk through a large bookstore, say Borders or Barnes and Noble. Almost all of them have pictures on the cover. Artists were paid to create those. Many of those artists will take the money they make from designing book jackets and create their own art. Sort of like Gwyneth Paltrow.
And it isn't just the Gwyneth Paltrows and Jeremy Pivens in the movie and TV industries who will take advantage of their large paychecks to fulfill their own artistic ambitions. See the list of 500 people in the credits in your average blockbuster? A quarter of those people may have screenplays they're trying to sell. Some of them might be aspiring directors who have directed short films. Some of them probably play in a band.
So that's what I would do if I ran the NEA: give money to museums and orchestras, the kind of groups that benefit a large number of people, and then give money to kids, because the return on investment when you inspire a child to be more creative is incalculable.
But I wouldn't worry too much about the adults. In a world of 500 cable channels, satellite radio, hundreds of millions of Web sites and cheap video cameras, I'm not worried about the state of the arts in the United States. I agree with Rachel Maddow, but I think the best thing the government can do promote the arts in this country is insure that we have the freedom necessary to express ourselves, keep the economy going, make sure every kid gets the best possible education, and then get the hell out of the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)