# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/141 "2017-04-09T03:36:57Z")
**Bricker** et al seem to be making two unrelated arguments: (1) it is the states which should have “plenary” powers, not the federal government; and (2) government shouldn’t pick winners and losers in the art world. (Though I doubt those making claim (2) have spent much time perusing the variety of projects funded by NEA.) (1) is an interesting side-issue but largely relates to a ship which has already sailed. The federal government has great power and serves to make America united. The feds built the interstate highways; with programs from the Dept. of Education, etc. they help ensure equality of opportunity across all 50 states, etc. Science projects like space exploration or LIGO are beyond the power of an individual state. I’m actually much more of a fan of state’s rights than most liberals, but it’s a tangential hijack here. In the present environment it is unlikely that many of the states will be able to take over the federal functions that the right-wing is intent on destroying. And, anyway, most of the anti-NEA people would oppose state funding of art for the same reason they oppose federal funding. So let’s focus on (2), and in particular on _ **why** _ the right-wing is so eager to defund arts, defund science, defund education. > [@Bricker](#): > > … There is a dramatic (ha!) difference between the role of state and federal governments. I invite you to recall that state governments are exercising plenary sovereignty and the federal government limited, but supreme in its bailiwick, powers. > > Typically, school boards are a creature of state government, and as a general principle, school boards are elected and indeed are responsive to local desires for Objectivism et al… > Speaking for myself, I’d certainly be amenable to a state-level program. > … > No, the Smithsonian should remain as it is. AFAICT, the U.S. constitution never mentions “education.” (It does mention “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” but it’s grasping to extend that beyond copyrights and patents.) However, I suppose you’re consistent and also oppose the entire federal Department of Education, no? If a state decides that creationism should be taught instead of Darwinism, do you view that as a triumph of state’s rights? Why the special regard for the Smithsonian? Doesn’t it also pick winners and losers? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/142 "2017-04-09T03:55:21Z")
Teaching creationism in public schools is a violation of the 1st amendment, because the establishment clause was incorporated. That is an entirely separate issue from whether or not there should be a DOE. One might argue against the existence of the DOE, but still support the incorporation of the Establishment Clause and hence the prohibition on teaching evolution in public schools. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/143 "2017-04-09T06:30:25Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > And I asked you for a cite for that assertion, a request which so far you have ignored. > > Why do you believe that the distribution of NEA funding for different types of art is somehow disproportionate to or a distortion of the different types of art for which artists are actually **requesting** NEA funding? Show us the numbers, please. I can see the lack of watercolor grants. I grant (!) that I am not privvy to the applications being made, but I can’t imagine why watercolor artists, who certainly exist in no small numbers, would choose to forgo the chance for grant money while elephant dung sculptors would eagerly seek it out. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/144 "2017-04-09T06:35:32Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > So let’s focus on (2), and in particular on _ **why** _ the right-wing is so eager to defund arts, defund science, defund education. We seem to be moving a bit far afield from art. > [@](#): > > AFAICT, the U.S. constitution never mentions “education.” (It does mention “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” but it’s grasping to extend that beyond copyrights and patents.) However, I suppose you’re consistent and also oppose the entire federal Department of Education, no? If a state decides that creationism should be taught instead of Darwinism, do you view that as a triumph of state’s rights? No, because that runs afoul of the Establishment Clause, which is binding on the states. > [@](#): > > Why the special regard for the Smithsonian? Doesn’t it also pick winners and losers? I would say rather that it catalogs the results of the various races. It’s a record, not a stimulus. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/145 "2017-04-09T08:13:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, because that runs afoul of the Establishment Clause, which is binding on the states. > > I would say rather that it catalogs the results of the various races. It’s a record, not a stimulus. I should have used “Intelligent Design” (instead of Darwin) or “Climate Change Denial” instead of science. Would such school programs represent the beneficial fruits of states’ rights? As for the Smithsonian, _just deciding which races to catalog is a value judgement_ and may serve as stimulus. And the Smithsonian has many exhibits of art and exhibits to celebrate diversity of cultures — should such exhibits be banned? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/146 "2017-04-09T16:20:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > We seem to be moving a bit far afield from art. I want you to comment on programs like LIGO which has cost the taxpayer over a billion dollars. _ **I will demonstrate that NEA programs are generally far more beneficial than LIGO and serve a greater public purpose.** _ If you still support such NSF programs but not NEA, then I conclude you’re either suffering from ignorance or that there’s something additional at work in your aversion to NEA. The Moon landings were extremely expensive but the cost was widely tolerated because (1) A fair percentage of the technology developed was useful for further space exploration, for advancing materials science, computer technology, and so on. Many technologies advanced immediately; others were enhanced on a slower time scale but still due in part to the space program. (2) There was an important battle for prestige at stake between the U.S.A. and the Soviet Empire. (3) The program provided huge inspiration and entertainment for masses of American people. Watching moon walks was better than watching a Superbowl. Compare this with the LIGO program. No important prestige is at stake — If China were first to detect gravity waves instead of the U.S., 99.99+% of the world’s population would never notice. The machinery built for LIGO is so specific that little of the technology will find near-term use. What technology does have general use could have been developed at a much lower cost. There was no “Superbowl” moment. If you posed the poll question “Which was discovered last year: Gravity waves or flying saucers?” the saucers would probably win the poll by a factor of 100 to 1. In terms of pure science, LIGO might be a better program than the moon walks. But “why should the government pick winners and losers”? A billion dollars would go a long ways towards a lot of scientific endeavors — archaeological diggings all over the world, genetic research, or even social science studies like the effect of art on child development. (To be clear _I_ am not opposed to LIGO. I’m simply demonstrating that a consistent thinker who opposes NEA would have to oppose much NSF spending as well.) Why did some bureaucrats get to decide that LIGO got the billion bucks? And, even if the Constitution allows the federal government to spend to develop useful technologies you’ll need to show us where it “allows” boondoggles like LIGO, but not NEA. > [@Bricker](#): > > … I don’t agree that the government’s job excludes “advancing technology.” As a consumer, one that must raise and support and army and a navy, the government is absolutely an interested purchaser for technology. Fine. But I’ve indicated that very little of the LIGO spending will advance technology. Discoveries about black holes are extremely unlikely to advance U.S. interests (i.e. lead to smaller cell phones ar better weapons). If wasted dollars is the issue it is absurd to accept LIGO and want to throw away NEA. If you argue (as I might) that LIGO has an intrinsic worth in celebrating and advancing our human spirit, then so does NEA and at a far lower cost. LIGO has made several hundred scientists very happy. _Imagine how much happiness NEA could provide for much less money!_ > [@Bricker](#): > > What NEA funding advances social sciences? I think you’ve bought into the right-wing meme that NEA focuses on obscene art. Instead, a great deal of NEA funds goes for children’s art programs, often giving disadvantaged youths pride and hope. And much of the funding leads directly or indirectly to knowledge of the relationships between art, youth, human development and community. I’m not sure if you were just unaware of this or have some legalistic Gotcha definition for “advances social sciences.” Why don’t you [peruse a list of some of the NEA grants](https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/fall-2016-grant-announcement-all-categories-revised3.pdf) and tell us which you’d cancel if some billionaire took over from NEA and asked you to screen these programs. Abolish all of them? > [@Bricker](#): > > We seem to be moving a bit far afield from art. Far afield? To the contrary, I needed to bring in NSF projects to prove my point —\* the tiny sums spent by NEA are so cost-effective compared with other government projects that you must have a hidden reason for wanting to abolish NEA.\* For many right-wingers I’m sure the main these is undeserving people shouldn’t get luxuries like art for free. I’m really hoping you have a more humane purpose for abolishing NEA, but if it’s just a vague hope that states will propose local endowments (which you’d oppose anyway, juding by your remarks) then I’ll be disappointed. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/147 "2017-04-09T19:28:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No: it’s no answer. The building is closed; the windows shuttered; the server disconnected. It’s the distinction between “we aren’t funding any projects this month,” and “we don’t fund art projects.” A closed building isn’t no answer. It’s as much an automatic rejection as is the email; it is an affirmative _no_. As indeed your second example seems to agree, even though both are answers, neither “no answer”. No answer is the lack of an answer; “No.” is an answer, even if phrased generally, and in the form of a shut door or an automatic email. And even if phrased generally, to each specific instance within, too. The word answer now looks weird to me. What the hell is that w doing in there. Snipping your setup; > [@](#): > > Do you hear of this and believe that it’s fair to say the federal government is biased against mumblety-peg? I would need to know that the federal government was aware of mumblety-peg (though of course there’s issues with that part alone), but yes, I would say that it’s fair to say that. Putting myself in your shoes, I suppose that for you to consider this a bias there would be need to be support from the federal government for sports other than mumblety-peg which it does not receive, much as your concern for bias exists when one piece of art is funded and another is not. Is there no federal support for sports in the US? I know there’s state- and lower-level help. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/148 "2017-04-09T22:30:52Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > …know that the federal government was aware of mumblety-peg (though of course there’s issues with that part alone), but yes, I would say that it’s fair to say that. Ok. I think that sets us firmly in “agree to disagree” territory. We’re simply getting very different impressions from the language. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2017, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/149 "2017-04-09T22:35:48Z")
@septimus re 146, I did not want you to think I was ignoring this post. I can’t give it then attention it deserves via my tiny phone keyboard. Later tonight I hope to answer fully, but I wanted to say the depth of information and logical argument is evident in your writing there. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/150 "2017-04-10T01:03:21Z")
Science: While LIGO may not seem to have immediate practical applications understanding physics does assist in things that we use every day. Had we dumped science funding related to testing particle physics and GR 100 years ago here are some of the items that would almost certainly not exist at this point in time. MRI - tech from Fermilab’s Tevatron Proton therapy for cancer - Fermilab again PET scans - particle physics experiments sensing individual photons of light GPS - Massively dependent on technology developed to test GR The World Wide Web - CERN As for Arts The U.S. arts and culture has run a trade surplus that’s grown every year, and it is not an insignificant portion of the GDP. But people don’t realize that funding development of creative talent is never going to happen without governmental support on the scale that currently happens. People like George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola didn’t just pop out of thin air. As an example Starwars simply wouldn’t have existed without government grants. At the USC film school the Navy paid for unlimited color film, and lab processing costs, for their students. Lucas offered to teach the class, and was allowed the opportunity to learn the craft. This is the part that people miss, “to make America great again” requires investing in education, new science, technology and industries including the humanities and the arts. Investing in these fields has not blocked Americas rise to power, our success is directly linked to trying new things. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/151 "2017-04-10T03:17:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I grant (!) that I am not privvy to the applications being made, but I can’t imagine why […] In other words, you have zero actual evidence to support your assertion and are arguing from what you “imagine”. Pretty much what I figured. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/152 "2017-04-10T08:51:10Z")
Joseph Stalin allegedly said “When one man dies it’s a tragedy. When thousands die it’s statistics.” Perhaps those who want to kill the NEA’s entire $150 million (just a statistic) should be forced to watch each $10,000 grantee be killed, tragedy by tragedy. The [East Valley](http://evct.org/) Children’s [Theatre in Mesa, Arizona](https://www.facebook.com/eastvalleychildrenstheatre/) received a $10,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts. Read up about this program and decide if you’d be happy to Kill this Theater. Or is it more important that billionaires, now often “taking home” 85% of their gross pay, have their taxes cut so they can take home 85.0000000001% instead? (Or don’t give them their tax cuts? Kill another 199 projects like the East Valley Children’s Theater (EVCT) so we can buy one cruise missile with the savings? EVCT is so well-respected now, that it might survive without this small $10,000 stipend, but the initial stipend was key, perhaps unlocking matching grants from state governments: [QUOTE=Karen Rolston, the volunteer artistic director of the East Valley Children’s Theater] “We have gotten other grants where they ask, ‘Who have you gotten money from in the last year?’ It’s kind of a feather in our cap to have those [federal] grants. It does seem to make a difference.” … At present, EVCT has an application pending for a new NEA grant to help fund an educational component for its annual play-writing contest, which would bring the winning playwright into schools to work with students. [/QUOTE] _ **But no** _; some want to kill EVCT because “states’ rights blah blah”, “liberal elites blah blah”, “the markets know best: if those brats wanted a theater, they should have had more successful parents, blah blah.” The quote from Karen Rolston was [taken from this webpage](https://qz.com/932332/who-will-lose-if-the-us-national-endowment-for-the-arts-is-eliminated/) which also points out: > [@](#): > > The key point is that the impact of those grants goes far beyond the dollars’ face value. A grant from the National Endowment for the Arts not only has symbolic value—a badge of honor making it easier for organizations to raise money from other donors—it also unlocks matching grants from local and state agencies. That $112 million unlocked around $500 million in matching funds from state, public, and private sources. > > The NEA acts as a leveling force, bringing arts access to under-served areas. Despite claims that the NEA is “welfare for cultural elitists,” cutting federal support for the arts will have the greatest impact in rural areas and on the vast swath of America that sits between its coasts. Big city museums and performing arts centers often benefit from the largesse of corporations and luxury brands eager to associate themselves with the high culture they represent… > > On a per-capita basis, more rural states such as Vermont, Wyoming, and the Dakotas are among the biggest beneficiaries from the NEA, while California—where privately funded institutions such as the $140 million Broad Museum in Los Angeles abound—falls toward the bottom of the list. > Jennifer Hicks, the director of the Spokane Symphony in Washington, said NEA funding is essential for symphony programs such as Music Innovates, which brings musicians to low-income schools such as Holmes Elementary (where the school breakfast program for poor students is also at risk) for instruction four days per week. The money helps train musicians to work patiently with students who have dealt with the traumas that come with poverty and incarcerated family members. > “These kids are getting incredible instruction through this grant,” said Hicks. “It helps their brain development, helping them feel they have a valuable skill, and a sense of belonging.” > In addition to education, Hicks says NEA-funded programs help build bridges between remote communities. Just yesterday, the symphony traveled to Rathdrum, Idaho for a concert with children from the Nez Perce Native American tribe, who have been studying the history of music. (The program started with a singalong of Ode to Joy and ended with the theme from Star Wars.) ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/153 "2017-04-10T09:25:57Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Remember, kids - funding the arts is transferring money to the rich. But corporate subsidies are creating jobs for the working class. > > Yes, that makes sense. > [@Quartz](#): > > Oh look, is that a False Equivalence I see? I don’t know what you’re seeing, but my post wasn’t one. > [@running\_coach](#): > > I’d rather view “Piss Christ”. Which, upon consideration, is a pretty good title for a Trump portrait. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/154 "2017-04-10T11:29:21Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Mine is a fairly strict constructionist view of the proper role of the federal government (which I recognize has largely fallen out of popularity today). At a high level, Article 1 Section 8 outlines the powers granted to Congress: > > Nothing in there appears to me to justify funding the NEA. I realize that some people argue for an expansive view of “general welfare” which would essentially give Congress a blank check to do whatever they want, so long as it was considered good for the “general welfare”, but that’s a viewpoint that I think is at odds with the rest of the document and do not agree with. I don’t subscribe to this view. There are many things that the founders just didn’t anticipate when they wrote the constitution. If enough of our elected representatives want to put a small amount of money into funding arts, I don’t think we should say “Tut, tut! James Madison didn’t say we could!” The founders did a lot of good things but they were human. And they lived in completely different times. And they’re all dead. I don’t care if they didn’t enumerate everything the government currently does on that quoted list. We need to do what works now, not what some guys who have been dead for 200 years would have done. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 11:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/155 "2017-04-10T11:35:05Z")
We haven’t seen much about what"conservatives" outside the board think, so let’s see what our dear friends at Heritage have to say about the matter: > **[Ten Good Reasons to Eliminate Funding for the National Endowment for the Arts](https://www.heritage.org/report/ten-good-reasons-eliminate-funding-the-national-endowment-orthe-arts)** > > As the U.S. Congress struggles to balance the federal budget and end the decades-long spiral of deficit spending, few programs seem more worthy of outright elimination than the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Indeed, since its inception in... “[ol] [li]The Arts Will Have More Than Enough Support without the NEA[/li][li]The NEA Is Welfare for Cultural Elitists[/li][li]The NEA Discourages Charitable Gifts to the Arts[/li][li]The NEA Lowers the Quality of American Art[/li][li]The NEA Will Continue to Fund Pornography[/li][li]The NEA Promotes Politically Correct Art[/li][li]The NEA Is Beyond Reform[/li][li]Abolishing the NEA Will Prove to the American Public that [/li][li]Congress Is Willing to Eliminate Wasteful Spending[/li][li]Funding the NEA Disturbs the U.S. Tradition of Limited Government[/li][/ol]” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/156 "2017-04-10T13:30:56Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I want you to comment on programs like LIGO which has cost the taxpayer over a billion dollars. _ **I will demonstrate that NEA programs are generally far more beneficial than LIGO and serve a greater public purpose.** _ If you still support such NSF programs but not NEA, then I conclude you’re either suffering from ignorance or that there’s something additional at work in your aversion to NEA. OK, at the outset I think it’s relevant to observe that whatever support I had for LIGO was entirely passive: I haven’t taken any active position, made any active commentary, apart from this thread, which to my recollection is the first time I specifically became aware of the program. That said, I think you’ve asked a fair question: what is it about LIGO that deserves federal dollars and makes such federal spending appropriate? From brief reading, I believe that LIGO claims its process and results to be relevant to optics/quantum optics/laser systems, materials science and technology, and to computing. [Cite.](https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/faq) I don’t know enough about the LIGO research to form an independent opinion, so I’ll simply ask if you agree with that claim. If you do, we can accept it as true for the purposes of this discussion. If these claims are true, then I’d argue that these are all areas of research that apply to areas of direct and legitimate government interest. As a consumer of laser systems, for instance, the government faces the problem of depending on industry to supply research and development to advance the field as well as to supply current state of the art (no pun intended) technology. > [@](#): > > The Moon landings were extremely expensive but the cost was widely tolerated because > (1) A fair percentage of the technology developed was useful for further space exploration, for advancing materials science, computer technology, and so on. Many technologies advanced immediately; others were enhanced on a slower time scale but still due in part to the space program. Agreed completely. > [@](#): > > (2) There was an important battle for prestige at stake between the U.S.A. and the Soviet Empire. There was, but that battle was only a symptom of the actual battle for _influence_ and the one for superior technology. Indeed, the primary battle was to ensure that space did not become the occupied high ground, quite literally. The actual battle was to capture control of a physical area that could be used to attack the opponent with near-impunity. Throwing rocks at your enemy when the rocks start from orbital height is a devastating attack; throwing bombs from that height even more so. > [@](#): > > (3) The program provided huge inspiration and entertainment for masses of American people. Watching moon walks was better than watching a Superbowl. No, I don’t regard this as a significant reason. And, even if the Constitution allows the federal government to spend to develop useful technologies you’ll need to show us where it “allows” boondoggles like LIGO, but not NEA. > [@](#): > > And much of the funding leads directly or indirectly to knowledge of the relationships between art, youth, human development and community. I’m not sure if you were just unaware of this or have some legalistic Gotcha definition for “advances social sciences.” I’m not aware any peer-reviewed projects that have taken NEA funding and produced significant new human knowledge about relationships between art, youth, human development and community. I absolutely admit this may be ignorance on my part. > [@](#): > > Why don’t you [peruse a list of some of the NEA grants](https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/fall-2016-grant-announcement-all-categories-revised3.pdf) and tell us which you’d cancel if some billionaire took over from NEA and asked you to screen these programs. Abolish all of them? I looked at the list. I did not assess each item, but as an example: > [@](#): > > Hedgebrook Foundation > $25,000 Langley, WA > To support fully funded artist residencies. Hedgebrook will select resident authors, with a focus on women > writers, through an anonymous, juried process. The writers will reside in cottages on Whidbey Island and gather > each evening to serve as editors and sounding boards for one another’s work. The amount is tiny. But the goal, although a perfectly nice thing to do, is simply outside any role I see for the federal government. > [@](#): > > -Park Foundation, Inc. (aka I-Park) > $20,000 East Haddam, CT > To support a collaborative residency for composers and musicians, as well as related activities. The program will > bring together composers and a performing ensemble working in the new music genre. The musicians will > collaborate with the composers on new compositions and then feature the works in a series of concerts for the > general public. Same comment. In my view of music, the “general public” can make its own selections, especially today, when YouTube is a free way to reach the entire planet with your new music genre. The federal government, in my opinion, has mo proper role here. I may be picking poor examples from your link: can you offer up something there that expresses more science that the government has a proper role in advancing? I’m open to social science, but not to the claim that art elevates us as a people and that this, alone, is a legitimate federal expenditure. > [@](#): > > Far afield? To the contrary, I needed to bring in NSF projects to prove my point —\* the tiny sums spent by NEA are so cost-effective compared with other government projects that you must have a hidden reason for wanting to abolish NEA.\* Cost effective towards what goal? The phrase “cost-effective” literally means that the cost to achieve the goal is acceptably low. I don’t agree there you’ve got a way to measure how effectively the goal is reached with regards to NEA programs, or indeed have even defined what the goal is with enough specificity that it can be measured. Now, it’s very possible that LIGO’s expenditures are so high that it’s not cost effective, either. But it seems to my uneducated eye that it has a measurable goal, and indeed has achieved it. My questions for them would be: is there a less expensive way of achieving this goal? And is there a valid reason to pursue the goal? Based on an extremely limited review, it looks like they can answer those questions. But since I’m not a physicist, I could be wrong. But I’ll tell you one thing that I know a great deal about: the discrete logarithm problem (and its cousin, the elliptic curve discrete logarithm problem, and their roommate, the prime integer factorization problem). These three classes of problems are the basis of almost all computer cryptography today. Our encryption is secure because these classes of operation rely on a similar “trapdoor” principle: it’s computationally easy to run them one way, and nearly impossible to run them in reverse. It’s very easy to take two large prime numbers and multiply them together to get a composite integer that’s 2000 digits long. But to take that 2000 digit number and figure out what prime numbers were used to generate it takes, literally, thousands of years of computer time. That fact is used to build secure encryption keys. But the development of _quantum computing_ would change that. A quantum computer can quickly solve that type of problem (see “Shor’s algorithm” if interested in detail). I have no idea if “computing” and “quantum” in the LIGO list I quoted above means that the LIGO research has implications in the development of quantum computing, but if it does, that would be an example of a very relevant area for government support. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/157 "2017-04-10T13:52:14Z")
But why [cant a festival of traditional bluegrasss and country music](https://wvfest.com/)get funding? Answer - Lib elitists in big New York City who are on the panel cant stand it. Oh and it would be held in Kansas- for shame! That is just flyover country for New Yorkers. Of course its funny how such a festival is self supporting while some New York Opera, in a city full of millionaires, needs massive subsidies. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/158 "2017-04-10T14:04:52Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > But why [cant a festival of traditional bluegrasss and country music](https://wvfest.com/)get funding? Answer - Lib elitists in big New York City who are on the panel cant stand it. Oh and it would be held in Kansas- for shame! That is just flyover country for New Yorkers. > > Of course its funny how such a festival is self supporting while some New York Opera, in a city full of millionaires, needs massive subsidies. You’re gonna have to cite that the festival was turned down for funding. There’s nothing in the link. And which NY Opera are you referring to? ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2017, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/159 "2017-04-10T14:20:38Z")
Well, well, well. The NEA does fund bluegrass. [Savannah Music Festival (Savannah, GA)](https://www.arts.gov/article/savannah-music-festival-savannah-ga) > [@](#): > > Known for its diversity as well as the excellence of its musicians, the Savannah Music Festival (SMF) hosts renowned jazz, blues, bluegrass, classical, and international artists over a 17-day period each spring in historic downtown Savannah. [Folk Festival gets NEA grant](https://natchitochesparishjournal.com/2016/12/30/folk-festival-gets-nea-grant/) > [@](#): > > Northwestern State University’s Louisiana Folklife Center will receive a $10,000 Challenge America grant from the National Endowment for the Arts to support the 38th annual event. > > The Challenge America category supports primarily small and mid-sized organizations for projects that extend the reach of the arts to underserved populations—those whose opportunities to experience the arts are limited by geography, ethnicity, economics or disability. [Madison Chamber Music Festival receives the NEA Challenge America Grant](http://www.morgancountycitizen.com/madison-chamber-music-festival-receives-the-nea-challenge-america-grant/) > [@](#): > > The Madison Chamber Music Festival has garnered much attention and praise in the Southeast by offering affordable concerts in unique venues, up-close and personal exchanges with world-class musicians, free community concerts, educational outreach, and an overall outstanding celebration of chamber music in all its forms from classical to bluegrass to jazz! [Why small and rural arts groups may hurt the most under Trump’s plan to gut the NEA](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/small-rural-arts-groups-may-hurt-trumps-plan-gut-nea/) > [@](#): > > Preserving Our Southern Appalachian Music, Inc. (POSAM) in Pickens, South Carolina > In 2016, POSAM received a $10,000 grant from the NEA to support bluegrass music education for youth and adults. From Executive Director Betty McDaniel: > > Coleman Center for the Arts in York, Alabama > In 2016, the center received a $25,000 grant to support the center’s visual arts programming. ---
**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 10, 2017, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963/160 "2017-04-10T14:53:12Z")
Yeah, the idea that the NEA wouldn’t fund bluegrass is ludicrous–I say this as an extremely amateur bluegrass player (although in 1984 or so I was at the time the youngest performer at the Galax [Old Fiddlers Convention](http://www.oldfiddlersconvention.com/)). It may be interesting to look at what the [NEA says about some of these arguments](https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/nea-quick-facts.pdf) > [@NEA](#): > > 40 percent of the NEA’s grantmaking budget is awarded directly to the states through their state and regional arts agencies, reaching millions more people in thousands of communities. The NEA designates that a portion of every state and regional partnership grant be allocated to serving underserved communities > • The remaining 60 percent are awards made directly to organizations and individuals that apply through the NEA’s funding categories. > • NEA grants provide a significant return on investment of federal dollars with $1 of NEA direct funding leveraging up to $9 in private and other public funds, resulting in $500 million in matching support in 2016. Note two factors: first, they’re sending money to underserved communities, so it’s not just supporting rich people’s art; and second, here and elsewhere they claim that the money they spend stimulates spending on arts through matching grants. [From another page](https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/NEA-FAQ-March2017-rev.pdf) > [@NEA](#): > > Some say many of the programs you fund are elitist. Is NEA funding essentially a subsidy for the wealthy? > > Absolutely not. The NEA’s role is to make sure all Americans have access to the arts no matter where they live. Among the proudest accomplishments of the NEA is the growth of arts activity in areas of the nation that were previously underserved or not served at all, especially in rural and inner-city communities. In many communities, NEA grants support free performances, as well as reduced ticket prices for those who cannot afford to buy a ticket. > > A significant percentage of grants benefit those who have fewer opportunities to participate in the arts: > -65 percent of NEA grants go to small and medium-sized organizations, which tend to support projects that benefit audiences that otherwise might not have access to arts programming. > -40 percent of NEA-supported activities take place in high-poverty neighborhoods. > -36 percent of NEA grants go to organizations that reach underserved populations such as people with disabilities, people in institutions, and veterans. > -More than half of NEA-funded art events take place in locations where the median household income is less than $50,000. I encourage folks to read these two documents in full. I’m not saying they eviscerate the anti-NEA arguments raised–in particular, the “government should not fund arts” is a philosophical issue that admits to very little attack on the basis of facts–but at least they answer many of the arguments raised. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-trump-and-other-conservatives-want-to-defund-opera-and-other-arts/783963.md?page=9)