# Why do Trump and other "conservatives" want to defund opera and other arts? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2017, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963 "2017-04-07T08:32:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/201 "2017-04-12T16:37:44Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I am talking about government efforts to promote social good like the program you mentioned … Where is the principled distinction between what the government should pay for and what it should not? If the answer is simply good or positive things then we are not spending nearly enough (and likewise are not in debt enough). The simple answer to the first part is that if you don’t have government programs that promote a better society, then you end up – more or less by definition – with a crappier society. You end up with one that, depending on what you choose to not support, may be less educated, less informed, less enlightened, or have access to fewer public infrastructure resources or less technological advancement or a less capable medical system. There is inevitably going to be disagreement about spending priorities, but to conclude from this that therefore no spending should occur at all for the advancement of society is totally ludicrous. The final point is that private money is no substitute for these kinds of government programs, for a whole host of practical reasons. The collective effect of individual spending tends to be _ad hoc_, shallow, self-interested, and mostly invested in short-term gratification. Government programs are institutionalized plans with often very long-term horizons. Private money is what gets you private schools for your own kids; government money is what provides public education for everyone. Private money brought you the Kardashian dolts in _Keeping Up With the Kardashians_ and Donald Trump in _The Apprentice_ (and, in a stunning bit of tragicomedy, helped elevate him to the presidency); public money and a collaboration between PBS and BBC brought you Carl Sagan in _Cosmos_. It’s true that a significant portion of PBS’s budget comes from private donations, but it’s also true – for that precise reason – that public broadcasting in the US has by far the worst per-capita funding of public broadcasting anywhere in the civilized world, and the nation is correspondingly the poorer for it in terms of culture and the general level of public knowledge. In the richest country in the world, PBS goes begging, hat in hand, to be able to sustain its programming, while commercial television inflicts an endless barrage of garbage on the airwaves. Such are the perils of relegating a national resource to private money, and letting worth be determined solely by popularity. > [@Bricker](#): > > I have a notional answer for that. > > The moon. > > By that I mean that the race to put a man on the moon spurred huge advances in other areas of technology. It’s not an exaggeration to trace the microcircuits that are now processing the words you’re reading to research and development that originated in the space race. > > Much like roads and the military, which are concededly worthwhile expenses that few expect to be handled by private pocketbooks, there are research and development projects whose long-term payoffs are too long to attract private capital investment. I think a strong argument can be made for government-as-customer to take an extremely long view of such investments. I agree, but it’s not just in research and development (especially basic research) that major public investment and a long-term view are required. It’s also true in areas like education, public infrastructure, and the arts. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/202 "2017-04-12T16:52:16Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > The simple answer to the first part is that if you don’t have government programs that promote a better society, then you end up – more or less by definition – with a crappier society. No. By definition you end up with a society that does not have government programs to promote a better society. Society may be better or worse off as a result. Your conclusion begs the question - it is not a given that government promotion of X leads to better society - that’s really the crux of the argument. Your “better” is not everyone else’s “better”. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/203 "2017-04-12T21:29:31Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Two things: > > 1. Do you have any evidence **at all** that their funding of bluegrass-type stuff is recent? I get that you “feel” things about them, but your feelings are not of any real interest here; if you have evidence to support that “feeling,” I’d genuinely love to see it. > 2. Do you have any evidence **at all** that they no longer fund controversial art? > > **Urbanredneck** , I think **septimus** is wrong about **Bricker** : while I disagree frequently with him, he’s absolutely rational about most subjects. He builds his opinions on evidence, and when he encounters new evidence, he can change his opinions. > > What I’ve seen from you in this thread does not suggest you’re looking for evidence on which to base your opinions. You started off assuming “conservative=good, NEA=bad,” and imagined some stuff to support that opinion; when shown that what you imagined was false, you just found a way to restate “conservative=good, NEA=bad,” and speculated some additional facts. > > Is that any way to run a philosophical outlook? Well maybe. I feel that in the art world anything that angers anyone “traditional” meaning christian, heterosexual, male, white - well they are open season. So if some gay guy does some work that insults Christians - then it is outstanding art and worth funding. Anything that has even a whiff of conservative values - well that is all crap. Plus, do they even know what is good “art”? Isnt it all subjective? Who decides what is good “art”? Their are millions of artists out there working hard who cant get a cent for their work and then somebody comes along and because of some random person, now their work is priceless. Wasnt there a story of some art “experts” thinking a janitors cart left out in a museum was a piece of art? How about [the 4 year old girls paintings that everyone in New York went nuts over while ignoring many true artists?](http://www.nbcnewyork.com/the-scene/events/Pre-Schooler--123145488.html) ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/204 "2017-04-12T21:59:44Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > No. By definition you end up with a society that does not have government programs to promote a better society. Society may be better or worse off as a result. Your conclusion begs the question - it is not a given that government promotion of X leads to better society - that’s really the crux of the argument. Your “better” is not everyone else’s “better”. Sure, but there are multiple levels of meaning here. Superficially I’m stating the self-evident fact that if the government doesn’t opt to pay for “X”, it’s not going to get “X”. Whether private enterprise will choose to provide it instead, and the kind of society that would result, is of course theoretically an open question and is at the heart of many fundamental liberal-conservative differences. But no one doubts that there are many programs that only governments can run effectively, such as much of basic scientific research (vs. the applied kind), public infrastructure like highways, airports, and waterways, protecting the quality of our food, water, medicine, and environment, and so forth. Many of those things are being done well, but many others are not, and IME there is a good deal of evidence that when the government fails to fund important public programs, society does in fact suffer. For instance, the generally crappy state of public education, which is downright deplorable for those in lower income brackets. Ever seen a public school in the less affluent section of a big American city? Or the state of public housing or social programs for the disadvantaged. Or, as mentioned, the pathetic state of public broadcasting, which gets less funding than any other advanced democracy on earth; commercial television is mostly a vast wasteland of content-free idiocy – most Americans don’t know who their own Congressional representatives are nor could they name most of the Supreme Court justices, but they can sure name the Kardashians and follow reality TV like it was the wisdom of the ages. Or how about the state of health care in the only advanced democracy on earth that doesn’t have a universal system – a health care system that just about everyone agrees is broken, but everyone is trying to fix on the basis of their own ideology instead of looking at perfectly functional models that exist in every industrialized country on earth. Or how about this headline: [Evolution Less Accepted in U.S. Than Other Western Countries, Study Finds](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060810-evolution.html). The only one of 34 mostly western democracies surveyed in which more people cling to young-earth creationism than in America is Turkey. [42% of Americans are creationists](http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx), and whopping 73% are either creationists or believe in some kind of evolution where God is doing the driving. 40 million don’t have health care, many more have crap public education, and few know anything much about their own government. Half of them don’t even bother to vote, and the ones who do got together recently and elected a national embarrassment. Those are just some random metrics that I don’t consider positive or indicative of the right public spending priorities. ---
**Author:** ![CaptMurdock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/captmurdock/32/11736_2.png) [@CaptMurdock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CaptMurdock)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2017, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/205 "2017-04-12T23:59:25Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > How about [the 4 year old girls paintings that everyone in New York went nuts over while ignoring many true artists?](http://www.nbcnewyork.com/the-scene/events/Pre-Schooler--123145488.html) Setting aside your “true artists” dig…from your link: > [@](#): > > The Agora gallery director, Angela Di Bello, said she judges works without first learning about the artists as a practice, but was surprised to find out the talented artist she wanted to feature was merely a toddler. > > “I saw great colors, great movement, great composition and very playful, and I thought, ‘This is fantastic,’” said Di Bello. “Who is this person? Only to find out, she’s a child.” This 4-year-old girl managed to capture the gallery director’s attention with her art before her age was known. That’s impressive. Imagine what this girl will do at fourteen. Or twenty-four. Maybe, just maybe, she’ll become a “true artist.” :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/206 "2017-04-13T00:11:59Z")
> [@CaptMurdock](#): > > Setting aside your “true artists” dig…from your link: > > This 4-year-old girl managed to capture the gallery director’s attention with her art before her age was known. That’s impressive. Imagine what this girl will do at fourteen. Or twenty-four. Maybe, just maybe, she’ll become a “true artist.” :dubious: Also from the link: > [@](#): > > But unlike other kids, Aelita’s paintings are known internationally and can fetch thousands of dollars. Three of her paintings hanging at the Chelsea gallery have already been sold, for a whopping $27,000. Not sure what the objection is here. The four-year-old is evidently selling art, not relying on grants. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/207 "2017-04-13T02:28:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not sure what the objection is here. The four-year-old is evidently selling art, not relying on grants. That’s what us true conservatives like. Not some four year old suckling at the government teat, but out earning her keep. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2017, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/208 "2017-04-13T02:58:56Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Well maybe. > > I feel No. I don’t give a wet fart what you feel, Urbanredneck. I asked you for evidence. You have none. It’s not up to me whether you keep making claims that have no basis in fact, but if it were me, I’d stop. Your feelings matter to you and your wife, but not to folks engaged in policy debate. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/209 "2017-04-15T04:35:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I have a notional answer for that. > > The moon. > > By that I mean that the race to put a man on the moon spurred huge advances in other areas of technology. It’s not an exaggeration to trace the microcircuits that are now processing the words you’re reading to research and development that originated in the space race. > > Much like roads and the military, which are concededly worthwhile expenses that few expect to be handled by private pocketbooks, there are research and development projects whose long-term payoffs are too long to attract private capital investment. I think a strong argument can be made for government-as-customer to take an extremely long view of such investments. I think you are right and I have no objection to this limited type of spending. It doesn’t follow that we should then fund every child singing or art group in every community. If we go that far (e.g. having a populace educated in the arts is a long term investment that government should make) then by definition government should be involved in everything as long as it is not affirmatively harmful to its citizens. Everyone has a pet program that they believe is absolutely essential to civilization. And I would venture that most people are economically conservative except when it comes to their own piece of the pie. Cut out all of this waste, but don’t cut X, because X is essential, where X happens to be where I get my paycheck from or I have a particular interest in. If you cut X, then the people who like X can give you statistics or wonderful Powerpoint presentations on how absolutely tremendous X is and how one must sincerely be an ISIS supporter if he wants to cut X. The solution is to get the government out of such things, which is the subject of this thread, like opera and other arts. If we get into funding such things, there is no limiting principle as to why we shouldn’t fund everything. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/210 "2017-04-15T04:53:11Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I think you are right and I have no objection to this limited type of spending. It doesn’t follow that we should then fund every child singing or art group in every community. If we go that far (e.g. having a populace educated in the arts is a long term investment that government should make) then by definition government should be involved in everything as long as it is not affirmatively harmful to its citizens. > > Everyone has a pet program that they believe is absolutely essential to civilization. And I would venture that most people are economically conservative except when it comes to their own piece of the pie. Cut out all of this waste, but don’t cut X, because X is essential, where X happens to be where I get my paycheck from or I have a particular interest in. > > If you cut X, then the people who like X can give you statistics or wonderful Powerpoint presentations on how absolutely tremendous X is and how one must sincerely be an ISIS supporter if he wants to cut X. > > The solution is to get the government out of such things, which is the subject of this thread, like opera and other arts. If we get into funding such things, there is no limiting principle as to why we shouldn’t fund everything. So in your view: since we cannot and should not fund everything, we should not fund anything? Do I have that right? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/211 "2017-04-15T07:10:29Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > So in your view: since we cannot and should not fund everything, we should not fund anything? Do I have that right? Right. Government should not be involved in things which are simply “good” but are not otherwise a legitimate governmental function. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/212 "2017-04-15T14:26:21Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Right. Government should not be involved in things which are simply “good” but are not otherwise a legitimate governmental function. Even if they promote the “general welfare of the United States”? What is a ‘legitimate governmental function’ if not those things that the elected representatives to the Congress, and the President, and the courts view as authorized by the Constitution, including those things that promote the “general welfare of the United States”? ---
**Author:** ![Beren\_Erchamion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/90ced4/32.png) [@Beren\_Erchamion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beren_Erchamion)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/213 "2017-04-15T17:01:20Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > Even if they promote the “general welfare of the United States”? > > What is a ‘legitimate governmental function’ if not those things that the elected representatives to the Congress, and the President, and the courts view as authorized by the Constitution, including those things that promote the “general welfare of the United States”? “Legitimate government function” = “things that I personally like,” apparently. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/214 "2017-04-15T19:00:47Z")
> [@Beren\_Erchamion](#): > > “Legitimate government function” = “things that I personally like,” apparently. Well, no. There’s a libertarianish/18th-century property-owner/strict constitutionalist approach that I find pernicious, but that doesn’t boil down to “things that I personally like.” If you want to disagree with someone intelligently, it’s important to understand where they’re coming from. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/215 "2017-04-15T19:12:51Z")
> [@SmartAlecCat](#): > > Even if they promote the “general welfare of the United States”? > > What is a ‘legitimate governmental function’ if not those things that the elected representatives to the Congress, and the President, and the courts view as authorized by the Constitution, including those things that promote the “general welfare of the United States”? “The general welfare,” is a phrase that appears in the preamble, and does not itself confer any additional power upon any department of the federal government. (Jacobson v. Massachusetts). And the current debate seems to arise from the elected representatives to the Congress, and the President planning to withdraw funding; if they do, does that settle the issue? I’d argue from a different perspective. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/216 "2017-04-15T19:20:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “The general welfare,” is a phrase that appears in the preamble, and does not itself confer any additional power upon any department of the federal government. (Jacobson v. Massachusetts). > > And the current debate seems to arise from the elected representatives to the Congress, and the President planning to withdraw funding; if they do, does that settle the issue? > > I’d argue from a different perspective. Mmm…not necessarily. There are various thresholds that need to be met. One threshold is, is this the government’s business in the first place? One higher threshold is, is this what the current elected officials want? One higher threshold is, will elected officials face punishment in the next election if they do away with this? The highest threshold is, can the government constitutionally stop providing this function? I don’t think anyone would argue that the NEA meets this highest level of government function (contrasted to something like a state’s provision of free public education as mandated in a state constitution). Some would argue that elected officials will face punishment for failing to provide this function. Nobody disputes that (many of) the current jerks in office want to do away with the NEA. But **Ultravires** is disputing that it’s a legitimate government function. It’s fine to say, “yes, it is, in part because it was voted into office by elected officials and has not succumbed to court challenges.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2017, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/217 "2017-04-15T23:59:46Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > But **Ultravires** is disputing that it’s a legitimate government function. It’s fine to say, “yes, it is, in part because it was voted into office by elected officials and has not succumbed to court challenges.” I agree completely that this kind of funding is constitutionally permissible, and I suspect UV does as well. I took his commentary to relate more to wise social policy choices; I could be wrong there, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Beren\_Erchamion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/90ced4/32.png) [@Beren\_Erchamion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beren_Erchamion)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2017, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/218 "2017-04-16T00:31:11Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Well, no. There’s a libertarianish/18th-century property-owner/strict constitutionalist approach that I find pernicious, but that doesn’t boil down to “things that I personally like.” If you want to disagree with someone intelligently, it’s important to understand where they’re coming from. Oh, I know _exactly_ where that particular “libertarianish/18th-century property-owner/strict constitutionalist approach” _really_ comes from. A decade and a half immersing myself in those people before I got my head out of my ass and started living and thinking and seeing the world as an adult isn’t something you forget lightly. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAlecCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SmartAlecCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAlecCat)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2017, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/219 "2017-04-16T11:14:18Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “The general welfare,” is a phrase that appears in the preamble, and does not itself confer any additional power upon any department of the federal government. (Jacobson v. Massachusetts). What about the occurrence of the phrase in Article I, Section 8, clause 1? > [@](#): > > To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; Does that not explicitly direct the congress to fund such things as they deem proper to provide for the general Welfare of the United States? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2017, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/220 "2017-04-16T18:39:34Z")
That argument can only be either that the arts do _not_ constitute part of our general welfare, or that the government should not use the power the beloved Founding Fathers gave it (which ones and why not, then?). So is the real position being asserted above that government should only fund arts that I _like_? That _don’t_ challenge my views and assumptions? That fit in well with what I think the political climate should be? That’s not how this works. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963.md?page=12)