CUTTING CULTURAL FUNDING: A REPLY

Two weeks ago, TIME devoted nine pages to a Robert Hughes essay on Congress, America's priorities and the arts. This is an important topic worthy of serious debate. Yet, instead of debating the message, Hughes decided to attack the messengers. It is unfortunate Hughes chose to resort to name-calling: "Neanderthals," "Jurassic...[with] limbic forebrains," "insatiable Fundamentalist Christian right wing" and "Jacks-in-office" are not helpful contributions to an important discussion of our nation's priorities.

TIME's readers deserve better. It is important to present the whole picture, not the distorted outline Hughes sketches. The American people need an actual debate to understand where federal funding of the arts fits in with larger issues confronting our nation. Balancing the budget, restoring a civil society and seeking alternatives to the pervasive intrusion of the Federal Government are part of this debate. Federal funding of the arts should not and cannot be discussed separately from the larger questions.

Hughes' essay rests on the misguided liberal premise that the Federal Government equals America. The cover declares, WHY AMERICA SHOULDN'T KILL CULTURAL FUNDING." Inside, the story is titled, "Pulling the Fuse on Culture." It is curious that such an apocalyptic tone is generated in defense of agencies that did not even exist for the first 189 of the nation's 219 years. Even Hughes admits the federal share of cultural funding ($620 million) is dwarfed by the more than $9 billion in private-sector contributions. With some changes in tax law, total funding of the arts and humanities could increase while the Federal Government role shrinks.

Hughes seems to think the arts and humanities should be exempt from the same vigorous scrutiny that virtually every other part of the federal budget is undergoing. When we have a national debt of nearly $5 trillion, it is the height of arrogance to believe that anyone's pet programs should be sacred cows. This view, by the way, is not the partisan attack Hughes would have readers believe. Even the Progressive Policy Institute, an arm of the Democratic Leadership Council, stated in its 1993 Mandate for Change that it opposed federal funding for the arts and humanities.

There are many well-intentioned programs the Federal Government funds that have not produced results we are satisfied with, including our education and welfare systems. Many of us believe that federal bureaucratic funding of the arts and humanities falls into this category. Has the overall culture flourished in the 30 years of public funding of the arts and humanities? Or has it decayed? Many Americans would argue the latter case.