Inglourious Endowments

So this weekend I saw Inglourious Basterds. The movie was awesome and I enjoyed it thoroughly. The plot semi-revolves around Joseph Goebbels and his takeover of the German film/art industry. A core tenet of fascism is the idea that everything (business, education, art, the individual) must serve the purposes of the state. Part of why people made such a big deal about the "death panels" in the health plan was because this was exactly what happened in Nazi Germany. The state provided health care, but people that were old and required lots of health care were seen as leeches on the state and needed to be eliminated for the good of the state. No joke. This is a big part of what socialism/socialized medicine is seen by many people as standing for. Do I think that this is actually going to happen under Obama's plan? No. I think the consequences would be far worse on the margin, but the effects would be far less obvious to the average person. Anyway, back to the real reason I'm posting.

As someone who is against government funding of things like the arts and non-profits, people ask me "How can you be against helping to promote art/music/etc. to the masses?" My response is that things like this can happen. Basically, the Obama administration wants to use the National Endowment for the Arts and the art community in general as an organ for the political messaging.

Backed by the full weight of President Barack Obama’s call to service and the institutional weight of the NEA, the conference call was billed as an opportunity for those in the art community to inspire service in four key categories, and at the top of the list were “health care” and “energy and environment.”

My favorite quote from the post is this:

Now, if you are for the issues being pursued by the current administration, you may be inclined to think favorably of what I am labeling “overreach.” What a powerful weapon to fight those that are opposed to our ideas, you may think. For those in this camp I ask you this - will you feel the same when the opposition has access to the same machine?

I think this is probably one of the best ways to evaluate any government program. How would you feel if your polar political opposite had control of the resources in question? If you aren't happy with the answer to that question, I'd take a hard look at my support for that program. The reality is, of course, more complicated. The people who make up the bureaucracies in question have their own goals and will do what they need to do to protect those interests. It's natural and there's no way around it. The key is to not conflate the interests of the public with the interests of the bureaucracy or politicians who control it.