FrontPage

Nation

World

Media

Culture

Technology

Commentary

Should the National Endowment for the Arts Receive Additional Funding? No.

While everyone wants the arts to thrive, the debate continues to rage over the best way to build a stronger arts community. Some suggest that government subsidies represent the surest way to encourage uplifting works of music, painting, and theater. In my view, the better approach for both artists and taxpayers may be found in depending not on Washington, but on private citizens.

The federal government has no legitimate role in funding or regulating the artistic expression through the National Endowment for the Arts. Not only should we reject increased funding for the NEA, but we should work to abolish the organization. Americans should not pay to be offended.

Too often, government-funded art has reflected the worldview of cultural elites hostile to the basic virtues embraced by the vast majority of Americans. This elite worldview is particularly hostile to religious faith. So while the "cutting edge" of the contemporary arts movement appears increasingly dedicated to offending people of faith, something like 90 percent of Americans maintain a belief in God. Insisting that the people of a nation finance ideas intended to insult their most cherished ideals makes little sense.

We are told that the NEA is a reformed institution, but time and again the NEA has served to underwrite projects dedicated principally to offending the sensibilities of working Americans. This is not a fiscally responsible use of tax dollars.

Artists may pursue whatever ideas they please. Taxpayers are not, however, obligated to hand over cash so artists can produce media-friendly, but intellectually questionable, works. Americans should not be forced to give over their hard-earned dollars to subsidize the obscenity that too often wins the approval of NEA bureaucrats.

The federal government provides only one percent of art funding in the United States, so we should view with skepticism the argument that abolishing the NEA will destroy our nation’s artistic community. Rather than inspiring works of creation that appeal to our better natures, government funding seems to support art too offensive to survive in the marketplace of ideas.

There is, however, something we can and should do to improve the arts and American life.

The very best way to expand arts funding is by shrinking the size of government generally. Americans are the most generous and supportive people in the world. Americans lead the world in their giving to charity and their strong support of the arts. The strongest step we could take to expand the arts in America would be to limit the size of government and liberate American’s native generosity.

The charitable giving of Americans has increased with the growth of our economy, and the artistic community has benefited from this generosity. Let us encourage this trend by freeing our nation’s economy from the tax and regulatory burden that prevents even greater economic growth. When people take home a greater percentage of their gross earnings, it follows that they will have more to give to many of the very activities government now feels compelled to support.

The Republican Congress has for five years presented a comprehensive plan for achieving this objective. While we have made much progress, enormous work remains. With a Republican president and expanded majorities in the House and Senate, we will complete the task.

America produced great art -- some would say its greatest art -- long before the federal government opened the doors of the NEA. We will continue to build on our nation’s tradition of artistic excellence by allowing private funding -- not government bureaucrats -- to guide the future of the arts community.