2020 and 2021 were challenging yet hopeful years for the performing arts, both domestically and internationally. We saw first-hand how pandemics cripple entire industries, how unions neglect their workers, and how – even today – our most prominent platforms are dominated by the stories of White men. That said, the pandemic also saw the rise of new and innovative modes of performance. Creatives around the country conceived new ways of seeing art and performance. As we returned from our homes to our familiar cramped, crowded, captivating artistic spaces, the industry finally appeared ready to include non-White creators into art forms both old and new.
With this kind of resilience in the face of extreme adversity, it is unsurprising, then, that repeated attempts by various members of the political right to reduce funding for arts organizations have routinely fallen flat. President Trump tried repeatedly to close the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), only to have it grow under his presidency. However, such attempts to undercut the arts long predate Trump. In fact, conservative icon President Reagan strongly opposed the NEA.
Today, conservative arguments against such funding are consistently published in major outlets. Some have suggested that a laissez-faire approach to the arts industry is uniquely beneficial, creating a system in which the best artists survive. Others have argued that the arts have become a haven for rampant “woke-ism” and anti-conservative values, therefore undeserving of government help. At first glance, it appears that both modern conservatives and conservatism writ-large should be opposed to such spending. If we look deeper, however, one can find arguments for increased funding for the arts that are based on the very values that underpin 21st-century American conservatism.
You’re never fully dressed without a (GDP-backing) smile
The GOP has repeatedly touted economic improvement as a key element of their policies; their 2016 platform begins with a criticism of what the party leadership perceives as an economy ruined by the Democratic Party. Their solution? Laissez-faire economics, and a pointed reduction of taxes to promote growth and prosperity. Four years later, President Trump campaigned on the fact that the nation’s GDP had increased under his presidency and economic policies. Although the numbers President Trump quoted may not have been as clear-cut as he purports, there is no denying the performing arts industry’s role in bolstering the American economy. Data collected by the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the NEA indicates that the arts provided as much as 4.5% of the nation’s GDP in 2017. This would mean that the arts sector provides more to the economy than construction and warehousing combined. If the Republican party truly wants to increase GDP and promote domestic job growth, they should support investment in the arts industry, a sector that consistently bolsters the economy. It is tantamount to giving tax breaks to businesses that bring money to the nation — both policies provide funds to sectors and businesses that buoy the economy and, unlike the usual options, are guaranteed to provide more jobs for American workers.
Anything you can do, America does better
American exceptionalism is a key message on the GOP platform, and the party’s promotion of this ideal is a salient component of its foreign policy. American culture must not only be preserved but also exported, so that the world may join in its celebration.
In addition to the monetary gains of arts and culture industry exports, there is perhaps no better way of showing off American culture than through spreading its performing arts around the world. By properly funding arts training and performance, more people and groups would be able to better present themselves in uniquely American art forms. Styles like jazz, musical theater, Balanchine-style ballet, and so much more were conceived in the United States, and if the American conservative truly wants to promote the individuality and superiority of the American cultural landscape, then supporting the funding of American artistic and performance groups is crucial.
Don’t Rain On My Performance!
Some may argue that conservative opposition to arts funding is primarily rooted in their dislike of the “liberal” media. Indeed, the organizations and productions that often succeed are the same ones that critique, mock, or attack American conservative politics, culture, and people. One may think of the infamous Hamilton incident, or how dance has repeatedly been used to discuss racial policy in arenas both formal and not.
However, such thinking is reductive and erases the sizable portion of the arts industry that is either non-partisan or even conservative leaning. For instance, award-winning playwright and screenwriter David Mamet is a famous conservative face within the Broadway firmament, frequently arguing in op-eds in favor of conservative arguments and against what he perceives as more liberal ones. Choosing not to fund the arts means neglecting conservative artists too, and the last thing the Republican Party should want to do right now is muffle conservative voices.
In addition, the Republican Party, especially in Democratic strongholds, could use greater arts funding as a part of their campaign platform. It could be perceived as an opportunity to amplify the conservative voices that the wealthy Hollywood elite stifle. Furthermore, considering the NEA’s proclivity to fund the arts and education in rural areas, conservative arts funding could be seen as an example of the Republican Party supporting America’s rural citizens. Although this might initially be difficult to sell, it is a crucial step for the GOP — especially because the Democratic Party posits itself as “the party that cares.”
Turn the House (of Representatives) Lights On
In 2022, attempts to control how we discuss difficult issues in classrooms have come primarily from the right, and many worry that the arts may be on the chopping block next. The chairman of the Freedom Caucus himself has repeatedly submitted bills with the express intention of defending the NEA. If Donald Trump runs and is elected as president in 2024, it is likely that he will attempt to shut down the organization for a 4th time.
As such, it is essential to remember that there are valid arguments for continued arts funding that align with conservatism — not just arguments rooted in economics, but in the moral framework to which the modern American conservative subscribes. Organizations such as the NEA and its less well-known counterparts have been running on less than their due for far too long, even as they significantly boost the American economy and provide Americans with the art that they love. It’s time to provide them the funding that they deserve, or — at the very least — to stop calling for their elimination.
