What the Election Means

What the election means in a negative sense for the arts is the elevation of a number of those whose position is that the arts should not be supported by government. That, I categorically oppose, and think its in all of our interests to oppose. I certainly don’t want to give them ammunition of the sort that suggests the Endowment is not a priority issue for the arts, or that its existence and health does not have a major impact on the arts in America. Why do that?

I can easily see a Congressman or Senator quoting Professor Rushton that funding the Endowment is not one of the “main policies that affect the arts”, and using that to legitimize opposition to funding the Endowment. Will they be taking Rushton’s quote out of context? Of course, that’s what they do. If I were a Senator and wanted (for whatever reason) to eliminate the Endowment, I would quote a noted professor involved in the arts to that effect. Why give our opponents that kind of ammunition?

As I said last week, I believe the prudent thing for the arts to do is to immediately begin to rekindle old, and form new, relationships with elected legislators in Congress and the states, and begin to lobby those officials as to the value of the arts (to local constituents) on all levels—economic, cultural, educational and otherwise. This is not, in my opinion, the time to be timid and quiet and to move slowly. Those relationships are essential to whatever you think are the most important priorities for the arts.