I absolutely support this, not sure why supporting cuts in the National Endowment for the Arts while we run huge deficits makes me a coward though.
I'm not saying this necessarily applies to you, but generally those who support cutting the arts do so either because they fail to see the value of the arts in society, or because they see artistic expression as a possible form of dissent or political commentary that needs to be stopped. Those in the latter group are the ones I would describe as "cowards." Also, Scott put it very well. We're talking about a cut that would hardly benefit anyone, while hurting many people.
Or maybe they think that spending millions or even billions on art is not the role the government should be taking, and that that money could be better spent on programs that actually grow the economy. (Not politically and racially motivated handouts for votes. That doesn't grow the economy. It weakens it).
They probably also think - through strong evidence - that these kinds of programs benefit only a select few of politically like-minded people and creates unnecessary bureaucracies that leads to entrenched power and serve no purpose to the 99.9% of the American people (other than spending their money). The money for these programs also almost always gets misused for political purposes.
Finally, they realize - quite obviously - that art in society is not going to suffer one bit by removing government handouts.
The biggest flaw among liberals is that they project what other people think. You basically just accused a wide swath of your countrymen of being barbarians who hate art and fascists who want to shut down dissent. The thought that they have very good, logical, and moral reasons for their beliefs - whether you agree them or not - didn't even occur to you.
They don't believe what you believe so they must be evil.
lol, nice strawman. I never once used the word evil. Talk about projecting. I'm in a generous mood, so I'll respond, knowing that I could just be wasting my time.
As others have mentioned, 150 million is small potatoes in a national budget, but speaking as an artist, the NEA
does make a difference in the lives of many artists. It's a small amount of money that provides support to programs across the country, many of which are struggling from an enormous lack of funding, and offers just a bit of support for people who get very little appreciation in society. We support and fund many other fields to a much greater extent, and yet I don't talk about that sort of funding as being a handout. Many artists and artistic communities depend on that small amount of support, and targeting or eliminating them does not actually help anyone or save a significant amount of money. Many arts programs in schools have to fight tooth and nail to get any funding at all, and we face lots of smug comments like "music isn't going to cure cancer" or "theater won't protect us from terrorists." I'm not saying people don't appreciate the arts because I'm an elitist with first world problems. I'm saying people don't appreciate the arts because
a lot of people really don't appreciate the arts, and many artists and teachers of the arts feel as though their way of life is hanging on by a thread.Sorry, but people who say that the arts aren't important are generally speaking from ignorance. That doesn't make them "evil", since we all do it from time to time, but nearly every argument I've heard about why the arts aren't important involves incredibly simplistic thinking. I could point you to a great deal of research on how art benefits the human mind from a scientific standpoint, or the fact that art plays a critical role in any form of entertainment or recreation, or how it provides a creative and productive outlet that helps many people reduce stress and remain healthy. This is not something that only affects 0.1% of the population. Slashing arts would not only harm artists (who are more than 0.1% of the population, by the way), but also anyone who benefits from art in society, which is everyone.
Maybe, just
maybe the fact that I've devoted a great deal of my life to one of the fine arts (music), and not only studied it, but studied the impact it has on the human mind and society makes me a slightly better source on the subject than someone who has merely passively noticed art without giving it much thought. Does that make me an elitist? So be it. I guess doctors who think they know more than me about medicine are also elitist! And those computer scientists who think they understand code better than I do. Elitists, I say! Some people are better authorities on subjects. Either that or reality is elitist.
Poll
