The Führer versusFree Enterprise 195ideologicaloriginof this program—it “gavea romanticslantto the progressiveideals”
that demeanedclassicalliberalism.^128
ExtortingMoneyversusKeepingWhatIs Yours:WhichIs MoreCensorious?
PoliticaljournalistJamesBovardascertainsthatsincea governmentagencyfor arts
subsidization“cannotfinanceall artists,politicaldecisionsmustbe madeon whowill
receivesubsidies.”^129 FormerNEAdeputychairmanMichaelStraightadmittedin 1991
that“when900,000peoplecall themselvesartistsin the census,it’s preposterousfor the
federalgovernmentto pickout 500 of themandsay,‘Theseare the oneswhodeserve
support.’” Straightfurtherconfessesthatthisagencyhas,for quitea numberof years,
enjoyed“playingGod” whenchoosingwhichartistsreceivetax support.^130
Apologistsfor NEAfundingproclaimthat the U.S.agencydistinguishesitselffromits
Nazicounterparton accountof NEAfundingbeingindiscriminate,not motivatedby the
agency’s politicalbiases.Thisargumentis strongly vocalizedby MarjorieHeins.She
claimsto support“governmentfundingwithoutstringsattached.”^131
Whenit comesto arguingthatit is just for the Stateto coercepeopleintofinancing
activitiesof whichtheydo not approve,Heinsfindsan unlikelyally—culturalconserva-
tivelegalscholarRobertBork,whoopenlyapprovesof censorship.Granted,Borkde-
nouncesa varietyof NEA-fundedartisticworkson the groundsof taste.Whenan artist
tooka photographof a crucifixsoakedin his ownurine,Borkreviledthat.Still,Bork
maintainsthatthisartwork,PissChrist, shouldbe denouncedsolelyon accountof its
tastelessness,and not on accountof its havingbeenfinancedthoughgovernmentalextor-
tion.Borkridiculeseveryonehe has caught“complainingthat workslike theseshouldnot
be subsidizedwith‘taxpayers’ dollars,’ as if taxpayersshouldneverbe requiredto subsi-
dizethingstheydon’t like.”^132
JohnFrohnmayercomparablycongratulateshimselffor ensuringthatthe NEAdoles
out grants“witha levelplayingfield,no blacklists,and no ideologicalpreconceptions....
YouandI don’t haveto likeeverythingthatthe Endowmentsupports,becauseyour
governmentis not a sponsorof thoseideas.The governmentis merelyan enabler.”^133 He
is rightto choosethat last wordfor reasonsotherthanthoseintended.The governmentis
an “enabler” of poorlychosenexpendituresthe samewaythat someonemakeshimselfan
“enabler” by helpingan alcoholicprocuremorebooze.
The factsbeliethe assertionsthatpoliticsplaysno role in decidingwhichprojectsthe
NEAdoesor doesnot fund;JamesBovardhas documentedexamplesof the NEA’s
impositionof a PC agenda.The HudsonReview, one of America’s leadingliteraryquarterl-
ies, had receivedseveralNEAgrantsuntil1993.A May27, 1993,letterfromthe NEAgave
the reasonfor this—”writersof colorweresignificantlyunderrepresentedin theHudson
Review.” Anotherreasonthe NEAdeliveredfor rejectingthe grantapplicationwasthat
this journalpublishedin its summer 1992 issuean articleaboutblacknovelistRichard
Wrightthatthe NEApanelistsdeemed“isolatingandcondescending.... Thisconcern
wasexacerbated... whenthis essaywascomparedwiththe fulsomeessayabout[Emile]
Zolain the sameissue.”^134 RogerKimball,The NewCriterion’s managingeditor,opined,
“Themessagefromthe NEA’s panelis clear:Onlyinstitutionswavingthe bannerof
politicalcorrectnessneedapply.... Evenif you havepublishedarticlesabout,say,black
authors,werethe articlessufficiently—thatis, unequivocallyandunreservedly—enthu-
siastic?”^135
Thereare otherexamplesof governmentfundingamountingto the manipulationof
the freeexpressionof politicalthoughts.Onecan be foundin the caseof the National
ParksService’s (NPS)magazine. In the publication’s February 1990 issue,a column
quippedaboutU.S.Congressmenin general,“Havingassuredthemselvesa significant