Funding Creativity

"Politicians don't bring people together. Artists do." -- Richard Daley (former Mayor of Chicago)

The Americans for the Arts Action Fund issued a report card grading representatives based on their support of the arts. It shows that most Democrats support the continuation of funding for the arts while Republicans oppose this funding. Romney has stated in an effort to cut the budget by $9.6 trillion in non-defense cuts, he intends on cutting funding to art programs, including PBS. The problem with this is not that he would be cutting funding, but that the amount of money spent on the arts and PBS is so minimal it would not even make a dent in our deficit. Suzy Khimm explains that getting rid of Amtrak, PBS, and the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities funding “would have saved the government about $2 billion this year -- chump change relative to the scale of cuts that Romney wants.” The amount of funding PBS receives in one year is equal to 6 hours of the defense budget. I am not arguing that the defense budget is unnecessary, maybe somewhat excessive, what I am arguing is that cutting the arts is not the way to reign in overspending. 

Arts in elementary schools have been shown to help develop cognitive and creative skills along with children’s imaginations. Edutopia, the George Lucas Educational Foundation, claims, “Years of research show that [art is] closely linked to almost everything that we as a nation say we want for our children and demand from our schools: academic achievement, social and emotional development, civic engagement, and equitable opportunity.” Art helps children excel in math, reading, critical thinking and verbal skills. In “Why Art Education Matters,” Lynda Resnick argues, “Studies show that art-centered schools outscore non-art-centered schools in academic achievement scores.” In 2009, Michelle Obama hosted a concert to bring attention to the importance of the arts, in her speech she explained,

“We believe strongly that the arts aren’t somehow an ‘extra’ part of our national life, but instead we feel that the arts are at the heart of our national life. It is through our music, our literature, our art, drama and dance that we tell the story of our past and we express our hopes for the future. Our artists challenge our assumptions in ways that many cannot and do not. They expand our understandings, and push us to view our world in new and very unexpected ways...”

Art is such an important aspect of childhood, even with government funding many schools are unable to provide children access to museums or art programs. Groups like Inner-City Arts offer children a creative and safe space to learn about visual and performing arts, their programs are “designed to strengthen language development, develop critical thinking skills, promote literacy and improve learning outcomes overall.” In the Los Angeles region alone, creative industries made up the second largest business sector in 2011, generating nearly one million jobs, according to the Otis Creative Economy Report. Studying art is often seen as pointless and a waste of time, but creative industries have become one of the top industries today. Engaging children in art from a young age will only help them throughout the rest of their lives and lead to furthering our creative economy. 

Constitutionality of DOMA

“Jesus never said a word against homosexuality. In all of his teachings about multiple things - he never said that gay people should be condemned. I personally think it is very fine for gay people to be married in civil ceremonies.” -- Jimmy Carter

This past Thursday the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) is unconstitutional. This ruling was not all that surprising but the fact that the rule came from an extremely conservative judge, Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs, was surprising to many. Appointed by President George H. W. Bush, Judge Jacobs has ruled that corporations are immune to international human rights law, has argued that attorney’s produce “anti-social effects” when they provide free legal services to those who would otherwise not afford them, and when dissenting has refused to read the majority opinion as a sign of contempt. 

The statements he made ruling DOMA unconstitutional came as a shock to many; he argued for a higher scrutiny when deciding DOMA’s constitutionality, the standard currently used when determining discrimination against sexual minorities is “rational” or “intermediate” basis review. When using a “rational basis review”, many states have found discriminatory laws rational under their current system. In states, such as California, where a higher level of scrutiny has been employed, bans against same-sex marriage have been invalidated. The court has adopted four factors that determine if a group should receive heightened scrutiny. 

1: whether the class has been historically subjected to discrimination

2: whether the class has a characteristic that bears a relation to its ability to perform or contribute to society

3: whether the class exhibits obvious, immutable or distinguishing characteristics that define them as a discrete group

4: whether the class is a minority or politically powerless

As Judge Jacobs argued in his opinion, “homosexuals as a group have historically endured persecution and discrimination,” homosexuality does not inhibit one from contributing to society,  and “are not in a position to adequately protect themselves from the discriminatory wishes of the majoritarian public”. In satisfying these factors, the court found a justification for heightened scrutiny. Along with this scrutiny, Jacobs argues any law that discriminates against homosexuals should be treated with “exceedingly persuasive” justification, the same justification used in discrimination against women. 

What does this mean exactly? Frankly, government discrimination against gays would be unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals argued that DOMA was not the right vehicle to be used in  preserving tradition, a goal in which the actual importance has come into question. The government should not refuse recognition of same-sex couples on the claim that family roles and the raising of children diminish when parents are of the same sex. Having such a conservative judge write the opinion on such a case is leaving many to assume the Supreme Court will rule the same way...we can only hope this is the case. 

Words From The Boss

Op-Eds

Death By Ideology

No 'Thomas Crown Affair'

Refreshing the Clean Water Act

"All that we see or seem is but a dream within a dream." -- Edgar Allan Poe

The Power of Being Informed

"A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user." -- Theodore Roosevelt 

I had been thinking about writing a post on the youth vote for the past few weeks, as I finally got around to it I came across an interesting, for lack of a better word, post You Only Care about One Thing??!!! It was riddled with contradictions (it kind of reminded me of someone...) and I found it quite embarrassing as a political science major, as a college student, and as an informed voter. 

I think that it is unrealistic to agree with every part of a candidates campaign, BUT it is extremely unrealistic to vote for a candidate because of one issue and one issue alone!! I do not understand why you would vote at all, not informing yourself of the OTHER issues a particular candidate stands for is one of the most ridiculous things in my opinion. This post reminded me why the youth gets such flack for their participation, or lack thereof, in politics.  

It is no surprise the youth turnout is significantly low, in comparison to voters over the age of 25:

(civicyouth.org)

I think the more important question is why the youth does and does not vote? The 2008 election brought out the highest number of youth voters since Vietnam, some credit this to Obama’s “idealized” campaign, while others credit the dissatisfaction with the Bush administration, Obama’s grassroots organization and the fact that Obama paid so much attention to the youth. 

So what is it that makes the youth disconnect from politics altogether? 

Some credit this disengagement to age -- “The most likely answer is that young adults do not vote because many are still -- in a sense -- children, without adult commitments or responsibilities.” Other arguments center around education, Peter Levine argues that education and social media are incorrectly defining what is important; “The frenetic 24-hour news cycle means that young people hear more about Sarah Palin’s latest Facebook message than substantive issues like health care, unemployment, the War in Afghanistan, and potential school budget cuts.”

Young voters are not being taught how to be responsible citizens, there has been a lack of attention on civic engagement especially when you begin to look at race or class. Levine offers a solution, by having schools, mainly high schools, recognize the importance of civic engagement they can encourage students to engage in politics by reading, writing and communicating important issues. Confidence plays a role in voting, the more confident you feel, in terms of your awareness and understanding of the important issues at stake, the more likely you are to vote. 

Organizations like Rock the Vote and Generation Citizen are attempting to educate the youth on the importance of their vote, showcasing which issues directly affect the youth, and what each candidate brings to the table. 

It is an important election for the youth, 18 to 24 year olds are faced with a 15.7% unemployment rate, even for those lucky enough to have a job or job offers, taking a stand (or caring) for others is commendable. 

Why Snoop Is Not Voting For Romney...

Where Have All the Rebels Gone?

"Our revolution has made me feel the full force of the axiom that history is fiction and I am convinced that chance and intrigue have produced more heroes than genius and virtue" -- Maximilien Robespierre

Compiling a list of incidents of civil unrest in the United States would leave you with quite a lengthy list, but how many of these events are relevant today? It would seem that when it comes to government and politics, Americans have become stagnant and uninterested in changing the status quo. Is there a  way to explain this shift from a rebellious, revolutionary past?

To understand politics in America, one must understand democracy. Unsurprisingly, there are many opinions offering  a version of democracy. Lets begin with historian Robert H. Wiebe, in his work Self Rule ¹, Wiebe breaks democracy into two categories, that of the 19th century and that of the 20th century. In Wiebe’s opinion, democracy during the 19th century can best be represented by America’s original democratic government, the result of a departure from European rule. Government was made up of a nationwide public, that excluded women and people of color, which represented the People in a radical way. As industrialization swept the country, classes began to develop, creating a hierarchy. This gave way to individualism, and brought us into the 20th century, replacing the collective self-governance with the popularity of the individual and consumerism. 

Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America ² not only observed American democracy from a social scientists viewpoint, but from a European viewpoint. de Tocqueville wrote about democracy as France was transitioning from aristocratic rule into a more democratic rule. de Tocqueville found that democracy leads to two distinct stages; the first leads men to independence, which could push them over to anarchy - terming this democratic liberty. The second leads men to servitude, aptly named democratic servitude. Democratic liberty would be democracy in its early stages, power was decentralized allowing local governments the flexibility to solve their own problems based on their personal experiences and nearness to the problem. The later stages of democracy as described by democratic servitude place power in the central government, universal laws and rules are put in place to eradicate problems, these laws are not subject to interpretation by local governments. de Tocqueville argues that a central government frees individuals from their responsibility to find solutions to any given problem they face, which in turn restrains people from developing the ability to weigh options and the subsequent possible effects. 

In Why Americans Hate Politics ³ journalist, E.J. Dionne, Jr, describes democracy in terms of conservatives versus liberals. In Dionne’s opinion, Americans have become disinterested in politics because of the party system, conservatives and liberals are too concerned with undermining the other party that they disregard the actual problems the people are faced with. Politics has become driven by an “either/or” viewpoint, politicians debate over “issues” when they should be looking at the “problems.” Dionne argues that issues divide voters, creating an us versus them politics, if politicians were to focus on problems, solutions would be demanded of them as soon as they were elected. By avoiding the problem, politicians and the government sustain a system where the people are distracted by “phony” issues, politicians argue the same issues continually without searching for new answers or solutions. Dionne also argues that we have forgotten the argument between big and small government as a result of the way politics have evolved, as a society we have come to accept big government and power being in the hands of a select group of people. Although he finds most people would agree on where America should be, conservatives and liberals have made it impossible for there changes to be made by offering a set of false choices for citizens. 

Jacques Ellul, in Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, describes democracy as an ideology and “a myth in that it has an explanation for all questions and an image of a future world in which all contradictions will be solved.” ⁴ (125) Democracy and propaganda form at the same time, propaganda turns an ideology into a myth:

For it is evident that a conflict exists between the principles of democracy -- particularly its concept of the individual -- and the processes of propaganda. The notion of rational man, capable of thinking and living according to reason, of controlling his passions and living according to scientific patterns, of choosing freely between good and evil -- all this seems opposed to the secret influences, the mobilizations of myth, the swift appeals to the irrational, so characteristic of propaganda. ⁵ (233)

Ellul explains that democracy is grounded in the individual, it is a government for the people, by the people, politicians work to receive the most votes from the people (in doing so they use propaganda). But, he also explains that the people are not capable of making the choices government is forced to make, propaganda is then used to give the people an artificial reality, which fulfills a need to participate in government without actually doing so. Propaganda needs to be understood in terms of its two distinctions; agitation propaganda and integration propaganda. Agitation propaganda leads men from resentment to rebellion, while integration propaganda directs men towards desired patterns. Both types of propaganda have been used through mass media and advertising since World War I. 

     

Now, looking at these definitions, is it possible to find a determining factor as to why individuals do not participate in government as actively as they once have, or is there a model that best explains why we have become so content

If we use Wiebe’s description of democracy, we can determine that the public is no longer interested in rebelling against the government as a mass or whole, people are instead concerned only with their individual needs. As long as government satisfies these needs, there is no reason to participate in government in ways other than voting. The main problem with this idea comes into play when you look at the hierarchy that was created by the industrialization. Those in the upper class did not have as much incentive to rebel against the centralized government, as many of them had their hand in government and they were the greatest beneficiaries in the system . For those in the lower classes there was much more at stake by centralizing government, and many riots or uprisings took place during the 19th and 20th century, further proving that people were not only concerned with individual goals. The idea of individualism and consumerism makes more sense today. Looking at a list ⁶ of riots taking place in the 2010s alone, a majority of the riots are related to sports not politics. People will come together and riot or speak out in the name of their football or basketball team, why are they not as engaged when it comes to the rules and regulations that command their daily actions?

de Tocqueville’s democratic servitude provides another example as to why citizens have become complacent, if government is centralized, leaving the decision making process in the hands of the few, individuals do not need to weigh options and outcomes, they merely must accept what the government is setting forth. In effect, by centralizing government, the people not only took power out of their own hands they took much of their decision making abilities out of their own hands. This might better explain why Americans are not actively participating, if the process of making decisions and weighing outcomes is taken away from us, allowing politicians to make all of our decisions becomes effortless. By getting rid of this decision making process, we might also be giving away our abilities to critically analyze government. 

E.J. Dionne, Jr’s writing offers a direct view into the frustrations of American citizens, rather than working to make change or progress in America, politicians continually argue the same points. In effect, Americans give up on the democratic system and often chose to not participate in politics in any form. This inactivity makes people disinterested in politics all together, they find all politicians liars, fools, corrupt, etc. I think this might play a role, but more in terms of voting, I think many people choose not to engage in politics because they feel they are faced with a choice between the lesser of two evils. 

Jacques Ellul offers an interesting look at democracy, instead of just taking democracy as a government by the people for the people, he looks at the tools used to create outcomes best suited for the state:

The aim of modern propaganda is no longer to modify ideas, but to provoke action. It is no longer to change adherence to a doctrine, but to make the individual cling irrationally to a process of action. It is no longer to lead to a choice, but to loosen the reflexes. It is no longer to transform an opinion, but to arouse an active and mythical belief. ⁷ (25)

By using propaganda, politicians create an atmosphere where the public feel as though they are participating in politics by placing a vote in the ballot box. While in some senses this is participation, it is not the end all be all of political participation as many posit. In fact we are just perpetuating the status quo, we are not challenging politicians or their propaganda to our full extent. 

Robespierre, an influential actor in the French Revolution, might offer some of the most relevant explanations in On The Silver Mark, where he describes passive and active citizens. Active citizens defined as “those able to pay a contribution equivalent to three days’ work were eligible to vote” ⁸ (5), and passive citizens some three million men (out of seven million) that were excluded. Those that did not have money were not able to participate in politics, in some ways this can be applied to politics today. People are able to vote no matter how much money they make but those with lower incomes vote less often and protesting or engaging in a rebellion often times pulls people away from their normal lives and jobs. Realistically, those most unsatisfied with the government are the people who do not have the luxury of skipping work to participate in a protest. According to Eric Hoffer, in The True Believer, mass movements require people willing to sacrifice themselves and others to achieve goals, they appeal to others by offering an escape. Hoffer argues mass movements target poor, misfits, former soldiers, or people that feel hindered by government. 

In conclusion, it would seem as though there is not one answer for this lull in participation by Americans. The class division rising out of industrialization has added to a more active participation by higher classes. Centralized government removing the decision making power of individuals could explain why the public does not fight for a localized government to make decisions. Peoples distrust in politicians can largely explain a decrease in voting turnouts and overall disinterest in politics. Propaganda and our inability to detect its uses can be used to guide citizens to make decisions the state deems as the best rather than leaving them to make decisions that are best suited for them as individuals. Class system and economics can also play a role in ones ability to participate actively. While Hoffer’s argument can be used to explain the participation in the recent Occupy movements, it shows how rare such movements are, inciting change in a large group of people from many different backgrounds does not happen as often as it once has in America. 

¹ Wiebe, Robert H., Self Rule. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1996.

² de Tocqueville, Alexis. Democracy in America. London: Penguin Books, 1863. 

³ Dionne, Jr., E.J. Why Americans Hate Politics. New York: Touchstone, 1991

⁴ Ellul, Jacques. Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes. New York: Random House, 1965. 

⁵ Ibid.

⁶ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States

⁷ Ellul, Jacques. Propaganda. 

⁸ Robespierre, Maximilien. Virtue and Terror. London: Verso, 2007.