tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808484.post89408494..comments2023-10-28T07:26:09.479+01:00Comments on Les said, the better: Charles CĂ©leste Hutchinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18123138871494922485noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3808484.post-37280518235092707052007-05-31T18:12:00.000+01:002007-05-31T18:12:00.000+01:00I was intrigued by your inquiries as to why artist...I was intrigued by your inquiries as to why artists tend to be leftists. However, your current theory, that leftist opinion is clearly the end-result of higher-level thinking, and therefore, people who think critically will become leftists, doesn't leave a whole lot of room for critical thinking. Take, for example, a fledgling art student, told by peers that once he/she begins to really think (instead of "being swayed by unthinking/simplistic responses to complex problems") that they will surely take the leftist point of view. If the art community is really as homogenous as you say, then it seems that the gut reaction would be to simply accept the crowd's thoughts as truth without thinking critically. Therefore, it seems to me that claiming that leftists are the only people who truly engage in high-level thinking is self-defeating, not to mention elitist and bigoted.<BR/><BR/>I have often been tempted to make a similar observation myself, about a stereotype with which I am more familiar with: engineers. Engineering is freakishly challenging. Engineers have to ask questions. Good engineers orgainize what they know and don't know and find out what questions need to be asked. There are whole systems in place to prevent decisions being made based on "gut emotions." So why is it that so many engineers tend to be conservatives? Again, I have met to many intellectuals of various places within the many belief spectrums that it would be a terrible insult to say that people who really think are going to end up thinking like me.<BR/><BR/>So let's assume for a second that conservatives are capable of rational thought beyond that required to work themselves into a state where 'easy-listening' and 'light-classical' is desired (truly a horrible fate). What might a thinking conservative say to some of the arguments on this post? I happen to consider myself in that camp, and will attempt to answer join you in your musings as rationally as possible.<BR/><BR/>First, I need clarification as to your claim about the historical funding of the Arts. It seems to me that, in the West, the arts have been supported predominantly by wealthy patrons, some of which happened to be heads of state, so technically, paid for by government money. That's entirely different from the sort of governments we have today, which began when the parliment of England gained power of the purse. Now, government money doesn't belong to a king or duchess to spend as they please. Ideally, as much money as possible would remain in the hands of the people of country, who could then support the arts with their surplusses. Ironically, the non-linear (leftist) tax system of the U.S., which taxes richer people at a higher % rate than poorer people, is taking much of the 'surplus' money away that used to be used to support the arts. The Guggenheim family is one notable example of rich people using their surplus wealth to support the arts. Perhaps what we need is a true capitolist system, not this mock-market interventionist system that is the United States economy. <BR/><BR/>Incidentally, why is it that so many people credit Adam Smith with coming up with the market systems, simultaneously letting his words define it? The US was never so close to pure capitolism as the mid-1800's, and became very close to being as socialist a country as many european nations during WW2 (and during the Carter admin). So maybe, for the sake of argument, we should clarify what we both mean by "capitolist system." Capitolism, as I understand it to be defined, is the free and peaceful exchange of goods and services. This mandates some sort of justice system so that con-men and highway robbers are restrained (stealing is not a peaceful exchange), but other than that, every intervention by an outside force makes that exchange less free (I get to sell you my mild for exactly $2 a gallon and no more). Under the marxist system, everything people make is taken from them, and in return they receive whatever the planners have deemed necessary and fair for them to have. Obviously, someone who produces a 'non-practical' good (like art) is going to be more pleased with this system than someone who produces a 'practical' good (like wheat or toaster ovens). This begs the question, is life really full if only the practical is taken provided for? On the other hand, is life really full if every detail is controlled by some gov. bigshot? You dream of the socialist utopia where people will be free from the toils and daily grind of work. I'm sure everyone would love to switch from occupation to occupation, but, please, explain to me, rationally, how this would work. Can you point to one example of a community (or nation) where this ever happened without the system going bankrupt? One cannot, lacking experience, just pick up a sewing machine and produce anything wearable any better than they can pick up a brush and produce something viewable. You have to work at things to become better at them. This creates a surplus. When people are able to exchange their surplus goods, wealth is created, because now those extra shirts are good for more than just wearing; they can now be exchanged for intricate artwork and bread and a new sewing machine and and all sorts of other good things.<BR/><BR/>People actually achieve freedom to do what they want without being oppressed by the demand of life (gotta-work to eat, gotta eat to live) in the pseudo-free-enterprise system of America and other countries. They do it by sucking it up, putting in some hours into providing services that feeds people's bellies, then cutting back their expenses to what is really necessary (which isn't much, considering that most of the world makes it by on less), and then pouring their energies into services which feed people's souls (like the arts), or whatever they feel like. Besides, people who spend too much time in one discipline often get lost in it, and lose the ability to relate to other people (and the rest of life). This is an ever-present danger to specialists, like scientists, engineers, artists, and the like.<BR/><BR/>As to roads, I think corporations who run extremly-high tonnage trucks should be made to pay for fixing roads, since they're the ones wrecking them. As an engineer I can assure you that sedans really don't do any damage to asphalt. But I don't forsee the road system becoming privatized anytime soon (postal roads are mandated by the constitution). When you say that the "government has switched to suppporting corporations only," what exactly do you mean? Are you talking about government regulation of certain industries, or the confusing code of tax breaks and price fixes for other particular corporations (not a capitolist policy), or are you referring to 'tax cuts for the rich?'<BR/><BR/>Explain what you mean when you say that "corporations are basically feudal and anti-democratic." I'm fascinated by the comparison. <BR/><BR/>$13.5 billion in 2005 to arts groups in America. Exactly how much would be "enough?" What are artists in India doing? What about the poor Chinese farmer? How is he going to express himself artistically when he hasn't the luck to have inherited a wad from some stuffy old capitolist workaholic? I mean, at some point you're going to have to quantify exactly how much money should be put towards the arts and why exactly people should be supported full time to express themselves artistically? What makes art students deserve special treatment? There's a lot of talent that never gets tapped into by a lot of those "unthinking" corporate feudal tyrants and "cannon-fodder." Incidentally, as malicious invadors have been responsible for the vast majority of art destruction in the world, from Alexandria to Paris, it seems to me that there's something to be said for a well-trained, well-equipped defensive army. It's that "free and peaceful) part of capitolism. I'm not talking about Iraq (that's another discussion).<BR/><BR/>The prisons are full because there are more criminals than ever before (and a well-funded police force to put them into a forced wellfare state). This is indeed due to a lack of education, but not of the sort that can be fixed by an increase in federal education spending. The education deficiency is one of morals, not one of knowledge (although some criminals are getting quite clever, and moving to high positions in corporations and government). And moral education cannot be achieved by a federal government who's policy is to advocate that there are no moral absolutes. "Do not steal" works for some people, but perhaps not for you and me. Also, I really don't think the expanding prison system is doing well as a corporation. It cost an incredible amount of money to support people who are now contributing very little to society (slightly offset by prison-labor programs). Ask China: they're considering raising the retirement age so workers won't be 'non-producing consumers.' They'd do it too if the old people weren't keeping the younger generation from getting jobs (30% unemployment for college grads). The exhorbitant prices charged by the lucky phone company (who probably got the gig through some government deal, this is why government control of the economy creates monopolies) would be substantially less if other competitors were allowed in to offer thier payment plans. Maybe we should mail inmates phone-card catelogues.<BR/><BR/>I know that this post is several years old, but if you happen to find my rantings, I'd be delighted to engage in enlightened conversation with one who, like myself, dislikes the swallowing sound-bites and likes to think things through.<BR/><BR/>~ Stephen, a conservative who loves art.<BR/>sirgoofiguskid@gmail.comStephen Swansonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02826738690225227432noreply@blogger.com