McCain on Arts Funding

We've gone a few rounds on whether federal arts funding is a good or bad thing here, but on the eve of John McCain's acceptance speech as the GOP Presidential nominee, I thought I should look a little more closely at what his position on the matter is.

There is nothing at all about arts funding (or the importance of the arts to the nation) on his website that I could find.

There are several blog posts about his long-standing rejection of the notion that federal dollars should ever be spent to support organizations like the NEA, and this article from the University of Southern California:

McCain... has a historical track record of supporting anti-arts legislation, including the 1999 Smith-Ashcroft Amendment, which would have cut all funding for the NEA; and the 1989 Helms Amendment, which aimed to deny funding to art considered “obscene.” McCain doesn’t have an arts policy, other than a desire to eliminate spending directed toward the arts.

In fact, in one analysis of how a McCain administration would spend federal money, the arts are singled out among a long list of other possibilities as the only place he would entirely eliminate funding. He'd increase funding for police and military needs, but for arts, and according to this source, arts alone, it's a total elimination:

McCain would “maintain status” on spending for:
• AIDS programs
• Environmental programs
• Foreign aid
• Housing projects
• Job training programs
• Medicaid & Medicare
• Student loan programs

McCain would “slightly increase” spending for:
• Education (K-12)
• Law enforcement
• Military & Veterans Benefits
• Border Control

McCain would “slightly decrease” spending for:
• NASA
• Welfare

McCain would eliminate spending for:
• Arts funding

I know that will endear him to some readers here, but in light of how he's approaching some other "entitlement" programs, this strikes me as a virtually hostile position toward the arts (not to mention, not at all likely to offset the tax cuts for the wealthy he proposes making permanent).

In response to this attitude toward a government's involvement/responsibility in supporting the arts, I would point out that among the more conservative people I spoke with recently about how they liked (or didn't like) the 2008 Summer Olympics, and there was plenty of bellyaching about what they assumed must be unfair judging or under-age athletes, not to mention human rights abuses, by the host country, the one thing they all agreed that they truly loved was the artistry and pageantry of the opening and closing ceremonies. That's what they remembered most fondly about the games, what they marveled at, what softened their otherwise harsh opinions of the Chinese: their art.

We can't afford a president who doesn't understand how the arts go hand in hand with improving your image abroad. Forget that this is the man who didn't have the wherewithal, especially among his staff, to avoid letting this photo happen...



...not understanding that one of America's remaining areas of dominance is its culture makes him uniquely unqualified to lead us into the 21st Century, where images are increasingly the new lingua franca and art one of the most powerful tools for diplomacy. I think it's fine to debate whether federal dollars should be spent on the arts, but McCain has no position on our cultural heritage, other than eliminating arts funding, that I can find. Anyone else knowing otherwise, please share.


_____________________
Postscript.

Watching the acceptance speech of Vice-Presidential nominee, Governor Sarah Palin (R, Alaska) last night, I couldn't help but think about this scene from the short-lived TV show, Commander in Chief, in which a woman Vice-President is told, upon the death of the President, that she had been put on the ticket merely as theater, and that the right thing for her to do was to step down now.



I actually loved the first three or four episodes of this show. The fire and strength of Geena Davis' character and the joy of seeing her work through the problems facing the nation with a mixture of wisdom and compassion was a wonderful antidote to the real-life White House situation in 2005. But somehow the show lost its way and eventually fizzled entirely. I think it had something to do with their main writer leaving the show, or perhaps it was just that there simply were not enough epiphanies that comes to one over the breakfast table as a mother with rambunctious teenagers and a husband who seems somewhat resentful at the role of first spouse that then provide insight into actionable solutions to international turmoil. In other words, if the shows writers hadn't relied as heavily on that device as they did, they might not have written themselves into a corner.

I won't predict how well Sarah Palin might do as President if it came to that. I truly hope, for the sake of America, she doesn't get the VP job.