The Führer versusFree Enterprise 193artist-Führerand in exchangereceivedhis protection:buyersfor theirworks,exhibitions,
allocatedstudios,decorations,anddispensationfromfrontlinefightingin the war.”^114
Thiscameat taxpayers’ expense,of course,not Hitler’s.
Hitler’s programof governmentsubsidiesto stageproductionsis mirroredin the New
Deal’s FederalTheaterProgram(FTP).Underthe auspicesof the WorksProgressAdmin-
istration(WPA),the FTPwasfoundedunderthe usualgovernistpresuppositions.Name-
ly, the Statewasmorallyobligatedto directthe courseof cultureby confiscatingtax
dollarsfromU.S.citizensandthenfunnelingthis capitalto the creationof art thatsuch
U.S.citizensmightnot haveagreedto bankrollvoluntarily.^115 Thatthe Nazis’ approachto
arts fundinghas becomePC becomesclearby howvehementlyan Americanpoliticianis
vilifiedwheneverhe suggestscuttingtax fundingto art. In 1999AmericanactorTim
Robbins(b. 1958)wrote,produced,and directeda semi-fictionalizedmotionpictureenti-
tledCradleWillRock, whichfocusedon the FTP.In the movie,villainousadvocatesof the
nightwatchmanstateobjectto the FTP’s tax expenditureson playswithstoriesthat
amountto anti-capitalistpropaganda.Robbins’s basicpointis thatto yanktax funding
fromartworkis an abrogationof freespeechandalsoan attemptto utilizegovernment
authorityto manipulatepublicopinion.^116
Notsurprisingis the politicalrhetoricof somerecipientsof grantsfromwhathas
servedas the FTP’s successorsinceits creationin 1965by PresidentLyndonB. John-
son^117 —the NationalEndowmentfor the Arts(NEA).NEAapologistshaverepeatedly
accusedthe pro-privatization,free-marketopponentsof tax fundingof beingcrypto-
Nazis.JohnFrohnmayer,whoservedas the NEA’s chairmanfrom 1989 to 1992,an-
nouncedto the NationalPressClubin the latteryearthatcuttinghis agency’s funding
wouldset in motiona chainreactionnot unlikeHitler’s conquestsof variouscountries.“If
the NationalEndowmentfor the Artsgetspickedoff... therewillbe no endto it,” he
cried.“It’s the Sudetenlandnow,Czechoslovakianextweek,and,afterthat,Poland.”^118
RobertBrustein,whosetheaterhas receiveda multitudeof NEAgrants,self-righteously
asserts,“The distinctionbetweencensorshipand determiningthe distributionof taxpay-
ers’ dollars... derivesfromthe perniciousAmericantraditionof lettingthe marketplace
ratherthana Commissionerof Cultureor a Ministerof Propagandafunctionas the censor
of the arts.Everyonehas a FirstAmendmentrightto subsidy.”^119 U.S.Rep.PeterKost-
mayerof Pennsylvanialikenedany criticismof NEAfundingto “bookburningin Ameri-
ca, 1990.”^120
HereI shouldexplainwhysuchinsinuationsproveto be at variancewithreality.I am
tiredof this assumptionthat for the Stateto avoidtaxpayerfinancingof art is the sameas
violatingartists’ freedomof speech.We shallexamineFrohnmayer’s proclamationthat
tax fundingfor art equals“freedomof expressionand the rightof its citizensto create.”^121
NewYorkUniversityLawSchoolprofessorand formerACLUpresidentNadineStrossen
actuallyconcedesthat“no artisthas a FirstAmendmentrightto governmentfunding,so
the government’s denialof an NEAgrantwouldnot ordinarilyimplicateconstitutional
rights.”^122 Yet thatis actuallynot the ACLU’s partyline in practice,as otherprominent
ACLUattorneysdo arguethatan artisthas a FirstAmendmentrightto government
funding.ExhibitAof this is someonewhohas workeddirectlyunderDr. Strossen—the
foundingdirectorof the ACLU’s Art CensorshipProject,MarjorieHeins.DespiteStros-
sen’s aforementionedconcession,Strossenand Heinsgo on to arguethatwheneversome
conservativepoliticiantriesto cut governmentfundingfor the arts in general,it is oftenin
responseto publicoutcryfromsometaxpayer-fundedartworkbeingconsideredlewdor
vulgar.^123 Strossennotesthatit is hypocriticalfor manyof thoseparticipatingin the
outcryto wantto pullfundingfor offensivetaxpayer-fundedartworkbut to continue
havingtax dollarsfundartworkthatdoesnot offendthem.However,Strossenconcludes
thatfor a politicianto yanktax fundingfor all art in responseto someart beingoffensive