Le Sabot Post-Moderne: Neglecting the Base

janvier 30, 2004

Neglecting the Base

If President Bush manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this election, the post-mortem will read: "Like his father, he neglected his base."

That was my reaction as I read today that he's increasing funding to the National Endowment for the Arts. Sure, the amount is negligible when we're talking about a trillion dollar budget. And granted, the NEA has come a long way since the bad old days of Mapplethorpe. And yes, a few moderates will read this the way he wants them too -- that Bush isn't Gingrich, and they need not fear him.

But the NEA has a lot more psychic impact on the conservative base than it does for the mushy-middle. It isn't a federal agency, it's a symbol, one which conjures up images of crucifixes in urine and all manner of perversion in glossy black-and-white. For a president who normally understands the importance of symbols, this seems totally ham-handed.

For the record, the federal government has no business funding art in the first place. I support the separation of Art and State.

Posted by Discoshaman at janvier 30, 2004 01:00 AM | TrackBack

Funding of the NEA is a symbolic move. Unfortunately, GWB doesn't understand the symbolism and doesn't seem to realize how offensive this is to many conservatives, including me.
-Jim.

Posted by: JD Mays at janvier 30, 2004 03:13 AM

Hey Disco, just wondering (in reaction to the discussion - elsewhere - of double standards): Do jokes about assassinating (sp?) President Bush fall outside your boundaries of decent taste?

Posted by: The Liberal Media at janvier 30, 2004 01:24 PM

Jim-

I've heard this from several people on other sites. A silly and needless misstep by the President.

Lib-

No, I think it's wrong to joke about assassinating just about anyone short of bin Laden or Castro. While I think Jesse Jackson is a charlatan and a chucklehead, I think it's wrong to joke about assassinating even him. I'd meant to comment on the thread where someone made such a comment, but the relentless pace of Le Sabot made me forget. Thanks for the reminder. :-)

Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 31, 2004 01:11 AM

I softly disagree. I think our fervor over funding an NEA, which has great leadership now and is promoting worthwhile art as the nation's largest art-supporting entity, should be redirected to pork-barrel spending in our states. Did you read the National Review Online article about this? This isn't our father's NEA, and the money is for a three year program. I don't think this qualifies as 'neglecting the base' but as understandable disagreement. I'm more irritated at the prescription drug entitlement.

Posted by: Raindream at janvier 31, 2004 02:02 AM

Raindream-

Good to see you. :)

I think we aren't really disagreeing at all, from what I read on your blog. My post really had two points to it, and I don't think either contradict yours.

The first is a Realpolitik opinion of the effect the move will have on the base. I'm not saying that it has huge psychic connotations for me personally, but for the base in the aggregate. I did read the NRO article. ;-) But I'm saying that it was a silly move on Bush's part, because for most NEA still a loaded term.

My second stance, which I think is close to your own, is that the Feds shouldn't be involved at all. But I certainly agree that it's pennies compared to the new medical entitlement. It's not the money that bothers me in this case, but the needless riling of the base.

Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 31, 2004 10:50 AM

Besides the needless riling of the base, it bothers me that its proof of "Just not getting it." While I fear it is sadly true that there are some elements of the "culture warrior" base who will happily roll over at the thought of the NEA funding real Shakespeare productions, it seems the administration misunderestimates the degree to which the base is committed not to "nice, traditional, family-friendly government-funded art" but to government shrinking and getting out of such areas.

Posted by: pentamom at janvier 31, 2004 08:27 PM

You're right. We probably don't disagree; but I felt the need to write because I keep hearing voters, claiming to be faithful conservatives, who are outraged at Bush's decisions for this or that (NEA, immigration, medicare, tariffs) and will not vote for him in November. I think they should sit down and take another perspective on their passion. Bush and his team may very well believe that a big government which supports healthy virtues is a good thing. We want a small government which supports virtue where it must. So I wonder if this is mostly an argument over methods where we should speak loudly for limited govn. while maintaining our election support.

Posted by: Raindream at janvier 31, 2004 10:19 PM

Then we're definitely on the same wavelength. I strenuously object to the mushrooming budget (for which Congress deserves equal opprobrium), but I want Bush re-elected. That's one reason I'm so annoyed by this NEA decision -- because it makes his re-election more difficult.

I oppose some of the domestic decisions he's made, but in the final analysis, the phrase "Commander in Chief Kerry" is one of the most frightening in the English language. I'll definitely be voting Republican this of all years. There are times for protest votes. This is not one of them.

Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 31, 2004 10:49 PM

pentamom-

" it seems the administration misunderestimates the degree to which the base is committed not to "nice, traditional, family-friendly government-funded art" but to government shrinking and getting out of such areas."

Nicely put, and points added for misunderestimated. ;-)

Posted by: Discoshaman at janvier 31, 2004 10:51 PM