Artistic freedom for taxpayers

National Review, Oct 27, 1989

A HOUSE-SENATE conference committee has adopted an amendment forbidding federal funding of obscene" art, though falling short of the restrictions proposed by Senator Jesse Helms. Those would have banned funding of art that either was "indecent" or "denigrated" a religion or race.

Granted that any such guidelines are bound to be more or less vague, Helms has earned the gratitude of voters, not the derision of liberals that has been heaped on him. Anyone who can appreciate Jefferson's argument that it's tyrannical to force a man to subsidize beliefs he opposes should at least be able to manage empathy for people who don't want to subsidize art that offends them (and is often intended to). The general principle is that Jews and Poles shouldn't have to pay for swastikas.

The New York Times and Washington Post argue that art should be insulated from politics and its independence maintained. In this context, that's flagrant nonsense. He who pays the piper has the right to call the tune, especially if his right not to pay the piper is denied. Compelling people to support what they are not allowed to control doesn't mean "independence" but irresponsibility, akin to taxation without representation.

It's particularly hypocritical for publications to demand the compulsory subsidization of art they aren't willing to describe in detail, let alone reproduce graphically, in their own pages. It's also tiresome to hear the "artistic community," as it calls itself, complain that everyone else's freedom depends on its own privileged status, which inverts the truth. As with any form of commerce, freedom in the arts belongs as much to consumers as to producers. Freedom of speech doesn't require that every crank orator be provided with a captive

audience. The right not to participate is precious too.