Donald Trump’s first months in office have been marked by innumerable explosive events, ranging from the devastating ban on people from seven Muslim-majority countries (since suspended), to further discoveries about the Russia allegations, to the president’s constant railing about “fake news” both in childlike tweets and to the accused media’s faces. In this bombardment of controversy and outrage, as likely part of the administration’s plan, many key issues often are overlooked. One of the most important of these issues is the proposed elimination of public funding for the arts, as part of promised cuts in government spending. Just before the inauguration, The Hill reported Trump’s plan to privatize The Corporation for Public Broadcasting and utterly eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities.
These three agencies stand for the United States’ investment in the creativity of its citizens. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting supports public broadcasting across the country, including the Public Broadcasting Station (PBS) and the National Public Radio (NPR). The National Endowment for the Arts provides grants to various artistic endeavors, and the National Endowment for the Humanities to humanity projects including museums, libraries, and universities. Whether it be in the form of watching a fantastic television program, listening to a trusted news broadcast, seeing murals on bus stations or finding a new book at your local library, it’s hard to imagine living in the United States without being touched by the work of these organizations.
So, why would this administration propose eliminating them? Republicans have actually been trying to cut off these programs for years in an effort to reduce federal government spending and balance the budget. Many critics question why the government is involved in funding private citizens’ art projects when the country is trillions of dollars in debt. It’s a valid concern, but the numbers tell a different story. According to The Hill report, a blueprint for planned reductions (including major cuts in the Commerce, Energy, Transportation, Justice, and State departments) under the Trump Administration would save an estimated $10.5 trillion dollars over 10 years. Sounds great right? That’s just covering what Trump is reducing spending on, not the parts of the budget he plans to increase. The most significant of these is in military spending, with a $54 billion addition planned to the already $625.2 billion budget (approximately the same size as the rest of the world’s military spending combined). To put it another way, in 2016 military spending accounted for 54% of federal discretionary spending, and Donald Trump recommends an 8.6% increase. Meanwhile, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities’ combined $758,700,000 budget would be able to provide for exactly 1.4% of that increase if eliminated. Thus, Trump’s priority is not cutting federal spending, but rather shifting it towards areas like the military (not to mention projects like the border wall, estimated at $21.6 billion), and he is trying to argue that ending programs that make up 0.000006% of the discretionary budget will somehow improve ones that make up 54%.
While the CPB, NEA, and NEH have been attacked by conservatives for years, they are beloved by many and their supporters are planning for a fight. According to a New York Times article on the issue, private advocacy groups such as PEN, the American Alliance for Museums, Americans for the Arts, and the Federation of State Humanities Councils plan to flood congressional offices to show their support for agencies. Additionally, many citizens are engaging with their representatives on the issue. Perhaps surprisingly, many of these citizens are Republicans. Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, interviewed for the New York Times, explains why with his statement “If they succeed, it will hurt rural America. New York will still have art shows. It will be rural stations that come off the air.”
So why should we care about continued government support for the arts? In my opinion, the importance of the arts can hardly be exaggerated. Far more than beauty, art in all its forms allows connections with other human beings. It allows us to step into another worldview, know another’s experiences and emotions, and thus leaves our own perspectives altered. If you have ever laughed out loud at a funny story, filled with wonder at the sight of a beautiful painting, or shed a tear during a sad song, then you have been touched by art, and brought to some kind of understanding by the artist. Art is empathy, and in an age when people are increasingly divided with their neighbors, I think America could use a little more of it. Instead, our leader is investing in walls and weapons. With the aforementioned miniscule budget of government funding for the arts, cutting these programs is purely a symbolic measure. It symbolizes this administration’s disinterest in unity, disinterest in the creative spirit of its people, and disinterest in that which makes humanity human. Personally, I want a government that believes in the power of storytelling, preserving history, sharing knowledge, and creating masterpieces. Thus, as the inevitable controversies and dramas continue to erupt from the White House, I will keep my eyes on this issue and not let federal funding for the arts die without a fight.
Photo courtesy of Pexels.
Budget numbers based on this National Priorities report.
This article is the perspective and opinion of the author and does not reflect the views of Her Campus at Cal Lutheran or Her Campus Media.