>
> Its too bad that these are the predominant reasons used to argue against
> the NEA and NEH ... Why should the government make any decision
> whatsoever concerning what culture should be? ... why should the
> government fund any of it at all. If museums, art, etc. are something
> truly desireable, then funds will come from private sources.

As we made clear in the recent letter to the Washington Post, the simple
fact is that government at all levels is and always has been involved in
cultural matters.  In the museum field alone, the federal government runs
hundreds of institutions in the national parks, at the service
academices, on military bases, etc.  Not to mention the Smithsonian and
National Gallery of Art.

If you take the conservative line to the absurd, why should government
fund libraries?  Schools?  Roads?  Why not get mercenaries?  (For what
it's worth, by the way, all of these questions have been asked with some
degree of seriousness in the Congress.) All of these areas are indeed
"truly desirable" but I think it's fair to say that among reasonable
people there is a consensus that there's a role for "government."  With
respect to culture, we've never denied that the role for the private
sector is much bigger than the government's; but we do assert that the
roles differ not only in size but in kind and purpose.

Andy Finch
[log in to unmask]
Usual disclaimers apply even more than usual