196 Chapter 8
payincreasewhileretainingmanyof the ‘perks’ attendantto beinga memberof Con-
gress,theymadethe nationsafeagainby recessingfor the Christmasholidaysin late
December.” Somemonthslater,the House& SenateAppropriationsCommitteewithheld
the magazine’s annual75,000dollarspublishingcostfromthe NPS’s budget,thereby
ceasingits publication.Thiswas a reprisalfor the magazine’s wisecrack.^136
Somemembersof the professionspeakout abouthowNEAfundingstacksthe deck
againstthe privateartsmarket.Considerthiscase:in 1991,the ArtsEndowmentdis-
persed174 milliondollarson variousprojectsit deemedworthy,andsuchgrantswere
matchedby cityandstategovernments.“Thefundshave,paradoxically,undermined
serioustheater,” observesplaywrightJohnChodes.On accountof the taxpayersubsidies,
the priceof rentingtheaterswentup drastically,particularlyfor consensuallyfinanced
theatretroupes.A NewYorkCitytheatrethat wouldhaverentedfor 400 dollarsper week
in 1981correspondinglycouldnot be rentedfor less than2,000dollarsper weekin 1991.
Moreover,tax-financedtroupeswereableto rentout somestagespermanently.“These
favoredcompaniesmonopolizetheateraccess.The endowmenthas a penchantfor financ-
ing ‘socialissue’ plays,and the lureof subsidies” motivatesvarioustroupesintostaging
them.Notethe commonrefrainthatartistsshouldbe subsidizedby taxesbecause,with-
out suchsubsidies,theseartistswouldhaveto caterto the vulgartastesof the market.
Herewe witnessthe reality—whentaxpayerdollarsfinanceart, artistsend up cateringto
the hobbyhorsesof government bureaucrats.Such“hewing to the NEApriorities,”
Chodesconcludesadly,“is the antithesisof a personalartisticperspective.”^137
ManycriticsclassifythecubistandDadaistpaintinggenresas bohemianartistry.To the
degreethattheywouldpreferto see bohemianartistsas the antithesisof Nazism,adher-
entsto the conventional“bohemianism-is-the-opposite-of-Nazism” narrativecantake
comfort.Hitlerdespisedtheseparticular(post)modernisticgenresandhadthemout-
lawed.^138 I dislikethosegenres,too, thoughI wouldneverpassany legislationregarding
them.DespiteHitler’s distastefor avant-gardestyles,we muststill confronta still more
glaringconsideration.It is that,ratherthanstandup to the NSDAPin the early1930son
behalfof freespeech,the majorityof Germany’s bohemianartistswholeheartedlysup-
portedHitler.Andthis wason the orderthatthe NaziPartyofferedthe exactsametax
patronagefor the arts that has becomeso politicallycorrectin the modernUSA.
GeorgeMasonUniversityeconomistTylerCowenstressesthat,per capita,NEAfund-
ing coststhe averagetaxpayera mere70 centsper year.^139 Still,I considerthis an argu-
mentfor cuttingtax fundingratherthanretainingit. The UnitedStateswouldnot suffer
froma dearthof greatartworkif eachAmericanwereallowedto keepthe 70 centsthat
wouldotherwisebe extractedfromhimat gunpoint.Millionsof U.S.dollarsare consen-
suallyendowedto artistseveryyear.
Andtax patronageto art is just oneamongan arrayof plansin the Nazipolitical
programthathavebecomePC. Americanprogresssivesmighthaveto confrontthe pos-
sibilitythatthereis muchin the ThirdReich’s public-health-related-andenvironmental
measuresthat theywouldappreciate.
NOTES
- Hitler2001,391, 233–34, 340, 45, 317–18.
- Hitler,qtd. by Wagener1985,148–49.
- Kaczynski1995,accessedonlineTuesday,November15, 2011.
- Ed Marston,“DearFriends,”HighCountryNews, April28, 1997,http://www.hcn.org/issues/108/
3399,accessedTuesday,August26, 2014. - Hitler2003,231–32.
- Qtd.by MacFarquhar2004,http://tinyurl.com/2nz66j,accessedTuesday,June19, 2007.
- M. Moore2003,137–148.