Maybe. But the not-so-private conversation that led to this was liberally (ha!) dosed with imprecations against the GOP, and admiration for the long-suffering, much-maligned House minority.
So even if the overall position is, in a vacuum, explainable as self-interest, this expression of it was Lefty Lefterson all the way.
Fair enough
But here’s the thing, and it’s not specific to opera but to most all public art forms: It’s damned expensive to produce. It can’t survive just on ticket sales. Yes, it’s possible in the largest cities to take up subscriptions among the plutocrat community and support opera or theatre or museum etc., as long as the plutocrat community is feeling generous about it, that is. It’s also possible for local largesse in places that have a large-enough and generous-enough plutocrat community to support welfare, too. But that support base is unreliable, and simply unavailable in many places. Government funding makes public art *possible *there.
Also, bear in mind that DC is awfully short of government-haters. Even people who don’t work for it depend on government contracts - like **Bricker **himself, for instance.
That it doesn’t mean I think it’s wise social policy. I like opera. I’ll pay for the tickets and go see the show. If the tickets cost $X instead of $2X, then I’ll pay $X. Under what possible rationale should I boycott the opera because it gets government funding I don’t think is wise social policy?
Bricker, you are quite aware that
[ul][li] A is obligated to do B, and[/li][li] A is not obligated to do B, but should do so as a matter of good policy[/li][/ul]
are distinct statements. Will you do us the courtesy of clarifying your position, rather than first subjecting us to a round of your inane Gotcha’s?
Reasonable people might agree, if only to elide a round of pseudo-philosophic gibberish, that government isn’t "obligated’ to do anything. Assuming your real point is that government should not spend money on fine arts, perhaps you’d let us know whether government should spend money on
[ul][li] public health,[/li][li] public education,[/li][li] food and drug safety.[/li][/ul]
This will save us all some time, as I fear that in your degraded view of government, fine arts might be the least of worries.
Yes, yes, and yes. All those are certainly proper subjects for government spending. Obviously we can differ on amounts and types of programs.
I don’t believe the government funded one penny of “Wicked,” or “Avenue Q.” People invested in those shows, and they found an audience willing to pay to see them. The government should not be in the business of saying, in effect, “People don’t like opera, but they SHOULD,” so we’ll pay the producers to produce it.
And I say this as someone who loves opera. I have been a season ticket holder for years. Before I was married, I was a season ticket holder here and in Baltimore. Sometimes I conduct the Bell Chorus from Pagliacci while stuck in traffic, and I suspect the people in nearby cars think I’m having a seizure. My comments don’t come from a distaste for opera – they come from a distaste of making other people pay for my entertainment.
Well, it makes all the sense in the world that your whole evening was ruined.
Well, I said “spoiled.” The entire time Leonora is musically dying from her knife wound, I’m stewing over what I would have/should have said to the smug asshole.
I admit that my own wound, described here, is largely self-inflicted.
I’ve noticed similar things happening at Science Fiction conventions. The general conversation largely assumes moderate-to-liberal opinions and values.
This tends to happen wherever educated and intelligent people gather. You might have better luck attending an Oklahoma corn-shucking event.
If I was so bored with life that I ever went to a gun show, I’m quite certain that I’d hear opinions on gun control that differed sharply from my own. Or if I went to Fenway Park wearing a Yankee cap, I’d probably hear questions about my parentage. Or if I was a Catholic priest at a Baptist convention, I’d hear some views on theology that I disagreed with. Only the densest of dolts would go somewhere where his opinion would be guaranteed to be in the minority and have an evening ruined on discovery that people disagreed with him.
And to think that people accuse you of pettifoggery.
You should have torn up your season tickets and thrown them right in his liberal mooching voter frauding face.
I like how one guy in line at the bar became the liberals who dominate the ranks of the opera.
My advice is that if they do Un Ballo in Maschera you stay away.
Next time tell him: “You have won second prize in a beauty contest - Collect $10. First place was a baboon’s ass.” Then grab his top hat, punch through the crown, and smack it back on his head. 
Absolutely.
But surely you can see the key difference between your examples and what I experienced.
The Catholic priest at the Baptist convention is attending an event directly relevant to being Baptist – he can hardly complain that people are Baptist and hold strong Baptist opinions.
I attended an opera. If I complained that my dislike of opera was challenged by the attendees, you’d be on point. But there’s nothing about opera that mandates a liberal position, is there? An opera attendee is not on notice that his audience-mates will be advancing politically liberal arguments.
Now, the gun show thing is perhaps a closer, more valid comparison. If YOU went to a gun show, no – you dislike strong individual Second Amendment rights, and you’re attending an event that celebrates strong individual Second Amendment rights. But there are plenty of pro-gun-rights Democrats. And I can imagine if one of them attended a gun show, he might be discomfited at seeing or hearing non-gun-related politically conservative views offered up with the confidence of general crowd agreement.
Look, it wasn’t just one guy. Yes, one guy was speechifying, but the mood of the crowd was agreement.
Couldn’t I just go, but not shake anyone’s hand? 
Bricker, I’m trying really hard to see some angle to your complaint that doesn’t have you appearing to be obliviously hypocritical. Maybe you can walk me through the extrenuating circumstances.
a) You attend a function you enjoy that wouldn’t be viable/available if not for government support.
b)Someone else who enjoys said activity vocally comes out in favor for the continuation of the status quo so you all can continue to enjoy this cultural event.
c) You take exception with his endorsement of the status quo that permits you to be there enjoying said event.
Sorry, but to me, the only way you wouldn’t seem a totally oblivious hypocrite would be to not attend events whose existence is predicated on funding through means you disapprove of.
What does the word “hypocrite” mean?
Is Orson Scott Card EVER invited to a SF event?
Please encourage the charming Ms. Bricker to join our happy group at her earliest convenience.