PxlDan

In February, I posted a review comparing the art policies (federal support and arts education) of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I thought it would be nice to revisit the issue with Obama and McCain. However, the McCain art policy would seem to be quite simple - no art. It would actually be more accurate to say the John McCain has an Anti-Arts Policy.

I wrote of Obama's Art advocacy: "As the author of two books, Barack Obama is no stranger to creative expression. His public stance on the arts has been to stress the importance of Arts Educations in terms of the importance that creativity has in the math and science skills needed to fuel the nations future. So in addition to an increased in funding for the NEA, as president, Obama has vowed to Expand Public/Private Partnerships Between Schools and Arts Organizations which would increase resources for the U.S. Department of Education’s Arts Education Model Development and Dissemination Grants. He has also promised to create an Artist Corps; young artists trained to work in low-income schools and their communities -- again linking arts curriculum to improved test scores."

Solid huh. You can download Obama's official Arts Policy Platform here: "A Platform In Support Of The Arts"

On the opposite end of the creative spectrum is John McCain who makes it quite clear that he would prefer to eliminate all federal funding for the arts. In 1999, McCain voted with, among others, Sens. Robert Smith, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Sam Brownback and John Ashcroft for the Smith-Ashcroft amendment. The amendment sought to cut all funding for the NEA from that year’s budget.

As for McCain's official policy on Art's education? Nada. The McCain/Palin website doesn't seem to address the subject. To be fair, McCain has been quoted as saying ”I have opposed federal funding for the National Endowment for the Arts because I believe it is not proper to use tax dollars for what many Americans feel are the obscene and inappropriate projects this organization has supported. I support providing federal block grants to the states for arts education and artistic endeavors pursued by state and local authorities, while assuring that federal tax dollars are not spent on obscene or offensive material.”

So while McCain opposes the NEA he does indicate a basic level of arts education as long as it's not offensive or obscene. However defining offensive within art education is a slippery topic. See example #1 and more recently example #2. This runs along the same lines as school libraries - who decides what's appropriate? I am quite certain the the level of art that I want my child exposed to is much more 'expansive' that other parents may feel comfortable with.

The candidates records on the arts are not going to define the election but I believe that arts and arts education are an important part of our society's well-being and a crucial aspect of our future financial strength. The importance of the arts education (music, visual, performing, etc) and creative development in general cannot be underestimated. No matter the industry, politicians included, creativity is a competitive advantage. Is it another educational advantage that our country is willing to cede to other nations?

BTW - In August of 2008, The Americans for the Arts Action Fund PAC released their congressional arts report card. It was nice to note that Colorado's standing has improved from the last time I reviewed the report in 2006. 2 A's 2 B's and 3 F's (2006: 1 A, 1 B, 2 D's and 3 F's) thanks to a one Dem (John Salazar) coming round and one less Republican. What does remains the same is that each F sits next to a Republican. 

There are 0 Comments for Arts Advocacy in the Whitehouse

Add A Comment

Name:

Email:

URL:

Message:

Performing Spam Check