377. My Comment at Blue Grass, Red State

Jefferson Poole is a young Republican wordsmith who operates the Blue Grass Red State blog. Although he doesn't wander far from the Republican Daily Talking Points, he does now and then have interesting entries and his personal writing is often worth reading. Yesterday was one of those occasions where he wandered, but not far. He posted an entry concerning an article in the Canadian publication Western Standard. Said article made the argument that government subsidies for culture are a bad thing.

Mr. Poole didn't offer an opinion on the article, although it clearly makes an argument which falls under the Grover Norquist mantra of "the less government the better," particularly if the argument calls for a decrease in what conservatives see as filthy lucre for liberal causes, which this article does. I offered a response, which I'd like to reprint below. To understand my response, you must first link to Mr. Poole's blog, and then to the article itself.

Aside from the political argument, there is also a comment on the misspelling of the article's headline.

Here is the link to Mr. Poole's blog.
http://www.bluegrassredstate.com/2008/08/abolish-culture-subsidies.html

Here is my response posted therein:

Is an s missing or a z? I tend to use the British spelling.

The Canadians, using the British variation of English, might possibly spell the word in question “subsidises.” In America, except for contrarions like me, we would certainly spell it “subsidizes.” The Western Standard headline editor obviously made an error, but not the one you may have expected.

In reading the article, the writer, whose name appears to be French, consistently uses the Americanized spelling, with a “z” rather than an “s.” The headline simply contains exactly what you said it did, an accidental misspelling, dropping either an “s” or a “z” depending upon the preference of the headline editor.

There are points in the article worth discussing. Much like our discussion in America about religious subsidies - faith-based initiatives, as they are known, the question becomes which tenets of which faith should a government support with subsidies in the form of faith-based initiatives. An atheist could argue that such faith-based initiatives are simply “cultural subsidies.” I’m not an atheist - I’m a baptised Christian who attends an Episcopal church - but I would have to agree. As the article suggests, the real solution would be to abolish all cultural subsidies, and by parallel reasoning this would include the so-called faith-based initiatives.

The article properly points out that those who are subsidized, in whatever manner, are simply those with lobbying prowess. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. It is left up to the government and others in the form of Oversight Committees, blogs, and the media, to make sure that the subsidy does precisely what it is intended to do, whatever its purpose, and to make sure such purposes are legitimate.

I’m not sure if cultural subsidies actually harm culture as the writer suggests. And I’d like to make clear that being opposed to cultural subsidies does not necessarily equate to opposing the teaching of art and music in school. Art and music and other fine arts have been cut out of the curricula of many schools in our country and as such I believe we have been harmed as a nation. I’m of the belief there is more to schooling than the traditional “three Rs” and the ability to pass tests. Recess has been all but eliminated. Athletics programs have been cut back in many schools, or their costs have been turned over to parents and supporters in the face of budget cuts. Are arts and music and recess and athletics part of “culture?” Could their funding be considered cultural subsidies? Do you support their elimination? I don’t.