Lisa Solod

Lisa Solod
Location
Savannah, Georgia, USA
Birthday
January 03
Bio
Writer, Mother, Mother, Writer Visit me at www.lisasolod.com

Lisa Solod's Links

New list
FEBRUARY 23, 2009 2:36PM

Why Do Republicans Hate Artists and Writers So Much?

Rate: 35 Flag

A few days ago, at a huge writers conference in Chicago, I met a charming and articulate man -- dressed in lizard cowboy boots and a very interesting sort of felt cowboy hat -- who happens to be a lobbyist for the arts. He was very excited to have just been a part of the effort to ensure the 50 million dollar funding of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the hope of continued funding for the organization for years to come. He was also happy to report funding for the organization whose conference I was attending. And he was full of anecdotes, one of which I found particularly compelling.

The great poet Philip Levine saw this particular lobbyist on his way into a meeting in Washington one day several years ago, and said to a fellow poet, "This is the man who lets us know how we are doing." The lobbyist told this story with pride in his work but also with some sense of responsibility.

Now I don't much care for the business of lobbying myself, and I told this charming man so, even when the lobbyist is asking for money for causes I very much support. Mostly I wish that there didn't have to be such a thing. But when our government has had such an egregious record in funding the arts as it has for the past eight years and when, clearly, the Republicans will do all and everything they can to take out any monies in any bills proposed that have anything to do with the arts, then I guess we are going to need all the smart and charming and hardworking and dedicated lobbyists for the arts we can get.

But why is that?

What on earth do Republicans in Congress have against painting and writing and dancing and teaching art in the schools? What it is about us artists that gets their panties all in a twist? What would Philip Levine himself say to Mitch McConnell or John Boehner or any of our other Public Servants, for that matter any of the men and women who nurse at the public tit but don't want a penny of public money going to anyone else?

There's a visible sneer in their faces and an audible sneer in their voices whenever the word "art" is mentioned. As though it were dirty or nasty or somehow something we should talk about only behind closed doors and only with intimate family members but not, somehow, in public, for God's sake. Reading? Fuggedaboudit. Museums? Oh, yeah, those are places where kids go on field trips that are no longer in the budget. Dancing? That's for sissies. Classical music? Isn't that something The Wife makes you go to once a year?

I don't expect Republicans to own up to having read anything more challenging than a Tom Clancy novel but would they really deny the rest of us the opportunity to do so? Is it really so hard to imagine that some people in the rest of the world really likes to hunker down with a beautifully written novel or a slim volume of poetry? Is it so difficult to get their narrow minds around the concept that some people actually enjoy going to museums and actually find looking at art compelling and interesting? That the preservation of paintings hundreds of years old makes us more civilized and compassionate somehow? And that that preservation is important historically? And that teaching the appreciation of the arts to our children is part of being civilized and educated?

And are they so completely out of the loop that the cannot even see the economic benefits of the arts to both our country and the world at large? A recent article in The New York Times http://http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/arts/16mone.html?scp=2&sq=NEA%20%20February%2013&st=cse made that very clear to anyone who bothers to listen. But clearly they aren't reading anything and they certainly aren't listening to anyone but themselves.

We got into this economic crisis in good part because our government has for the very longest time been incredibly short-sighted. It may be that we now have a president who is willing and able to take a longer view. If the Republicans will just sit down and shut up for a few moments. That, as far as I can figure out, is the least they can do. And as we know, Republicans always do the very least they can do.

 

*This article was originally published in the February 23 Huffington Post 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
(This article was published in today's Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-solod-warren/why-do-repubicans-hate-ar_b_168443.html)
Lisa you can't reason with a cult. That is what the leadership of the GOP has become.
I know. But it was fun writing the piece:)
If you could put art on a bomber they would fund it...
otherwise forgeddaboudit . Art is for queers. My GOD
I despise people with republican type minds , or is it
that they have no minds , or souls ?
great post I'll add this to my disgruntled of issues closet.... oh and can I lobby for a changing of the GOP? I honestly never had a clue what that stood for until I asked a few weeks ago. Grand? no, Old? yes, Party? with you? only if forced.

rated for rantiness:)
It's interesting, though. I've been noticing lately that every museum I visit has become a "childrens' museum," in that museums are making their money on adults bringing children to the museum as an outting, rather than selling themselves as a destination for adults. (I cannot understand why children can't enjoy art without "interactive" touch-screens or paddling pools.)

Sheep dog is right though, the Cult has thrown out all art with the Maplethorp bathwater. It's a damn shame.
I think your generalizations are not serving your argument. I've worked in corporate America most of my life and been surrounded by wealthy, accomplished Republicans who are very well read, and would never deign to pick up a Tom Clancy novel. For that matter, my mom is Republican, and her library is full of interesting and challenging books. What exactly is your argument here?
My theory about people who fear/hate art is that they are all failed artists. Republicans simply magnify that process. On the other hand, they may not realize that "art" isn't simply an investment, that it can also take the form of something as simple as a smiley face. :)
Actually, a very profound question when you think about it. Maybe they're the "civilized" version of the Taliban.
because they can't fry it in lard?
Because, as JFK said in a 1963 speech:

". . art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth. . . . In free society art is not a weapon and it does not belong to the sphere of polemics and ideology. Artists are not engineers of the soul. It may be different elsewhere. But democratic society--in it, the highest duty of the writer, the composer, the artist is to remain true to himself and to let the chips fall where they may. In serving his vision of the truth, the artist best serves his nation."

Republicans/social conservatives do not want free thinking - witness their attempts to restrict scientific inquiry in regards to evolution and research. They want people to believe what they tell them to believe. Artists by nature are independent - Republicans hate that.
Wow -- HuffPo. Excellent. And well-deserved. The question lingers -- what is up with these people? Sometimes I think it's just orthodoxy in general -- religious or political ... these tyrannies work best with a docile populace that doesn't think independently or ask uncomfortable questions. But that's part of art's purpose -- to shake up and unsettle, to undermine and subvert, to create revolution one mind at a time. That's my best guess ...
The relief that so many of us felt when the map on election eve showed so much blue, and when the cameras from around the world, even, showed all those happy faces, was astounding to me, Lisa. I hadn't dared to think what it would mean to lose. All I wanted was to be unable, in six months, to remember the name of that terrible woman. And then came the inauguration, and what a sight it was, to see that man and his wife loaded onto the big helicopter. My wife laughed when I told her I was singing the song from the Wizard of Oz. And now you post this, Lisa, and I want to say what I've been thinking ever since the inauguration festivities died down: that this is just the beginning. Forty eight percent of the American people voted against our present President, and they're not going away. And not only that: Obama's job is to not merely represent those who voted for him, but those who voted against him as well. If he is really to be a larger man than his predecessor, then this is what he has to do. And so do we. Now isn't the time for us to dance in the aisles. These people almost took over the country. What am I saying... they did take over the country. The polarization they stand for, the mindless ideology, the cheap tactics, all these things we can just as easily fall into, from our own side. I don't feel secure at all in this victory. The price of freedom really is eternal vigilance, like the saying goes.
Art can be created by anyone, can be appreciated by anyone. Art can be put out for everyone to enjoy. It makes people happy. Republicans don't like stuff like that.
As a Republican, I love art. However, I don't think the government should be funding art. Art should be commercial and based on patronage, not on government subsidy (and the inherent force involved in taking tax money).
Well said. They have no clue how they are robbing minds, especially our children's, of expression, imagination and creativity. Thumbs up for your post.
I can't speak for Republicans as a whole or even those left in congress for that matter, but I get the feeling from the congressional version that they are a cantankerous group that only want to stifle art and education as a method to grow the country stronger. How exactly that is supposed to work is still a mystery that is yet to be explained.
I think they believe an educated American is somehow a threat, when in fact an educated and cultured populace oils the wheels of democracy and civilization.
I have some Republican neighbors and they are some of the nicest people. They are neither hateful or ignorant, but are hung up on the abortion issue. When I try to explain that everyone is against abortion and there are other issues going on in the world that should be considered when making political decisions, I'm met with blank stares.
On another note, I recently watched an HBO special by Alexandra Pelosi. She bravely followed the McCain campaign during the last months of the election and I'm not sure I've ever heard such vile, ignorant, bigoted racism in my life.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Republicans come in all shapes and forms of ideology, but their congressional leadership is one scary group of stubborn, narrow minded neocons that sometime border on the ridiculous when it comes to art and education.
Excellent post L.S.W. This is a much more important question than most people realize. All art says, "take a loot at this". "Perhaps it is this". Art is progressive, and it is expression by alternate means, even if it is expressing a conservative or reactionary idea, it is progressive relative to a sermon or a lecture. The G.O.P. is a reactionary mob which chooses belief over reason. It is a nihilistic, anti intellectual cult. It opposes art.
The reason they hate artists and writers so much is because they can't find a way to make money from them and what they create. Now, give them something that destroys things and can perpetuate war, and we'll get their attention. Well said, Lisa. All of it. Rated.
I do have to speak up for the most recent chairman of the NEA, the Republican Dana Gioia, who in the past eight years managed to distribute NEA dollars to programs in every single congressional district (before, about a quarter of them didn't receive funding) and who helped the NEA's image tremendously by making it less about "Jesus in a jar of urine" and more about programs like bringing touring productions of Shakespeare to U.S. military bases and underprivileged high schoolers.

(He's also an accomplished poet and critic in his own right. Not all Republicans hate art.)
Being of the Evil Death Party myself, perhaps I can bring some insight into how we as right-wingers think. Mostly, it's a cultural disconnect between us and the people we see as being associated with art. Evangelicals don't like sexual experimenters, while secular conservatives cringe whenever they see Barbra Streisand - or Arianna Huffington - associating themselves with anything. Smell a joint?

For pro-art libertarians like myself, the problem is government funding. Given that art is whatever patron and artist agree it shall be, when the patron is a government the art tends to be bent in whatever direction that government approves. It's one thing for a town to fund art in furtherance of its own image, but quite another to have to appeal to the tastes of a distant national organization in Washington. You wouldn't like it if Republicans had that degree of control over your work, and you're no more likely to enjoy that sort of control from Democrats.
I'm with cartouche. If it can't be bought and sold like widgets it has no value to them.
So many comments! I have been ferrying my daughter to get her learner's permit (she passed the test and is ecstatic!)

Trig: You may have something there:)

Surreal: Would that we could.

Voicegal: I have noticed the emphasis on the kids, too, but at least we are getting kids in. A recent NPR story told the sorry tale of field trips being cut, cut, cut with budget cuts. I would hate for that to happen because I think that the ONLY time some people every see the inside of a museum is on a school field trip. Which is a crying shame. But I am with you: why can't we just look at art?

Sandra: I think people have addresed your issue. But the thing is that people have to be educated about art and literature, don't you think? And if funding gets cut because it's "unecessary" and "doesn't immediately produce jobs" then we will be a nation of real dummies and that scares the shit out of me, as an artist. It SHOULD scare the shit out of everyone. That it doesn't bothere the Republicans in power really scares the shit out of me.

Emma: I don't think they are failed artists so much as wannabes. I can't tell you how many times people have come up to me and said, "Oh, you're a writer. I have always wanted to be a writer!" I want to say to them: "Really, I've always wanted to be a brain surgeon!"

Grif and Cat: Nice!!!

Bill P: Terrific! Thanks so much for finding that.

Steven: Thanks for the props. And yes! Art's purpose is to shake things up. But conservative minds hate that sort of thing.

Joe RR: Oh baby. Eternal vigilance is right. We must not rest.

Irritated: Thanks, doll (Sure wish I knew what you looked like in Real Life:))

Coogansbluff: Art and making it make me very happy, too. Listening to Boehner and his ilk does not make me happy.

Perididochas/Agore: What we are talking about is helping out literary magazines, art education, getting art in schools, getting grants to artists, and making art accessible. Many many other countries value their art and their artists a whole lot more than we do! In Ireland, they don't pay taxes and in other countries they are often subsidized. In this countries most every writer and painter teaches just to be able to do his art. Only a handful make a living, most make no money at all. We make fun of artists, we cut art the first thing. Music education is a joke. What is up with that? And yet we revere the great masters. AFTER THEY ARE DEAD.

Screamin: Thanks.

Michael: You and I know some of the same one-note wonders. Chri Rock has a great riff on this.

Bill, Cartouche and Eric: Yes and Yes and Yes!

And Finally Leandra: Lots of artists would vehemently disagree with you about Dana Gioia and are glad to see the back of him!!!
In my dreams, I will live in a country that has plenty of money to support the arts because there is no occasion for it to support war. Think of what could've been done with all of that money that went to nothing but death and destruction in Iraq.

I hear what you're saying, Lisa, but I don't know if anything is going to change right away with so many other problems threatening to crush us.
There are two things I should tell you about me:
I believe in education for the sake of being educated.
I believe in art for the sake of art.

Therefore, I feel by definition I cannot be a Republican.

If your attitude toward education is that it should only be used to help one become employed, well, any education which helps broaden one's views will be deemed anathema. Art falls into this category, as it can help teach many to see the world through a different lens.

One of the things I hear most frequently from Republicans is that they don't consider much of the art funded by the NEA to truly be "art". They define "art" only in terms of what they like. They don't understand that government funded art, when that art is used as a message for the government, is reduced to propaganda. The NEA allows creative individuals to express themselves without being hindered by the masses nor restrained by government censorship. This seems to be the Republican's biggest objection.
I have actually had conversations with conservative Christians that believe that performance is sin, either because it is immodest and brings attention to yourself instead of to God, or because it is "acting," and therefore not behaving in God's image. I am not joking.
I get this, and I see what you're saying , and I too was thrilled with the new NEA funding but... in my experience as a lobbyists (I know, I know)... the Ds need education about this, too. Sure they voted right and sure they may be more open to talk to the arts lobbyist, but that doesn't mean they get it and that they can defend it out in the field. (And if they have trouble defending arts funding with constituents, we're in trouble). Ds need the same education, though perhaps less of it, in order to keep supporting the arts. And, I wouldn't give up on the Rs totally. It may be a harder audience, but we have to keep trying to sway them a little, to soften the opposition. Allowing arts funding to be a D or an R issue is not good for us at all.
Actually, the comments have not addressed my issue. I reject the contention that all Republicans hate and fear art. The comments here take this premise and a given and go about trying to explain the why of this what. I'm still back on the 'what'. I simply don't agree that all Republicans, to a one, read nothing but Tom Clancy (if nothing) and can't imagine a world where others like to hunker down with a good book or a volume of poetry. There are some erudite liberals out there in the film industry who make a compelling case of film being art, which means Reagan himself was an artist turned politician. You can poo poo the quality of his art, but I can turn around and poo poo at least 50% of the writing content on OS as not being 'art' produced by 'artists'.

So again - what is your argument - that the government should do more to endow the arts? That Democratic administrations do so far more than Republicans? Do the economic benefits of supporting the arts outweigh the economic benefits of other social programs?

You seem to be arguing that only Democrats enjoy reading and classical music and going to museums, while Republicans to a one have zero appreciation for such things, finding them boring and even dirty and nasty. This is patently ridiculous, and while it might be fun to engage in this sort of hyperbole and create a political 'we' vs. 'them' in the artistic sphere, I simply don't accept the premises you lay forth.

I think art is very important. I think literature is particularly important. I think that art should be a solid part of the educational curriculum in the United States. So I'm not by any means arguing against art. I am just not clear on how we can logically proceed from the faulty premise that Republicans are a bunch of unwashed cretins who can't appreciate the value of art, or that Democrats are solely responsible for barely keeping the arts alive with their courageous, erudite patronage. And I think the idea of government patronage of the arts is a complex issue that requires more than ad hominem attacks on Republicans to justify.
Good Lord, Sandra, no one, particularly not me, if you have read any of my other posts, would argue that all the writing here on OS is art or that blogging at all is art. Where did you get that from anything I said?

And nowhere did I dis film as art. Nor did I dis Reagan.... who was, at best, a mediocre actor, if a moderate Republican. My piece, and its defenders, clearly speaks to those Republicans who wish to cut all arts funding from the stimulus and from discussion by the current administration, and who seem to find it amusing to dismiss arts funding with the same broad sweep as they dismiss anything which does not IMMEDIATELY provide a job (bogus reasoning in any case)--which matters not a whit in the long run because no Republicans have supported a damn move Obama has made, nor have they come up with their own plan.

I think our country and its government should support the arts. And it is clear to me that Republicans don't wish to, haven't for years and are clearly obstructionist about it now. They talk a big game, but when it comes to banning books and art and stopping funding and the like, they are at the forefront. That's pretty obvious to me. You disagree? That's fine. We disagree.
Point taken that my own hyperbole presented a red herring. But you did NOT single out Republicans who wish to cut all arts funding from the stimulus and from discussion by the current administration.

You painted all Repubicans with a broad anti-art brush and presented them en masse as people incapable of understanding or appreciating art, music, and museums.

"Reading? Fuggedaboudit. Museums? Oh, yeah, those are places where kids go on field trips that are no longer in the budget. Dancing? That's for sissies. Classical music? Isn't that something The Wife makes you go to once a year?"

"I don't expect Republicans to own up to having read anything more challenging than a Tom Clancy novel but would they really deny the rest of us the opportunity to do so?"

It's hyperbolic in the extreme to suggest that all Republicans would like to stop all Democrats from anything more artistic than reading a Tom Clancy novel (not that there is anything wrong with Mr. Clancy per se).

Maybe Republicans are stonewalling endowment to the arts. But you aren't really making the case here by making such sweeping partisan statements and ad hominem arguments. Surely you can see that. I just don't think that approaching the subject this way advances the causes you seek to advance.
I think a cogent question is why do Republicans hate loyal and patriotic Americans. cy
Sandra and Lisa, You're argument is merely semantic. There are no "Republicans" as such, but many shades and varieties. The Republican Party itself was taken over by the far-right, ideologically-driven evangelical religious faction, led by the Southern Baptist Convention, Assembly of God, Mormon etc. They put Bush in power and he acted under their authority. Their agenda is Inquisitional. They deny all Science in the name of their personal ideologies, believe we are a Chosen People whose destiny is a final days battle in the MidEast with the righteous overcoming all evil. This is no joke, not an exaggeration. Kevin Phillips in "American Theocracy" details this argument. This faction took over the country for many years, and if Obama's grass roots organization had not beaten them back, I'm afraid to think what the outcome might have been. I say the battle's not over because it's not. This is not about Republicans vs. Democrats, or Liberals vs. Conservatives. Nor is it about Good vs. Evil. It's about Free Thought vs. Ideology. We're reprising fundamental conflicts that recur throughout history. Our opponents are organized and committed. We need to be educated about what we're dealing with.
In this case, though, Joe, it IS the Republicans ,ie., the Republican Party, that is doing what you say.
Beautifully said, especially the last lines. Great post!
rated. Well, there is mama bear daddy bear split in politics between the Republicans and Democrats, and has been for about thirty years. Men tend to be somewhat nervous about being feminized by admitting they like art, but there are lots of Republicans who like art of certain forms, albeit traditional ones on average, and in which there is some functionality to that in terms of preserving the old in order to remember that you need some sort of aesthetic to have art at all. But there are Republican poets, painters etc, I assure you. :)
Oh, yes, there are Republican painters and artists and writers.... I keep being told that. So why aren't they agitating their representatives to stop being such pricks about supporting the arts in our society and our schools? And, by the way.... I have been fortunate to have received a number of fellowships to an artists' colony. Not once , in 20 years, have I been there and met an (admitted) Republican artist/writer/composer/performance artist/photographer, etc. Interesting? I thought so. And at the huge conference I attended the other week, all the buzz was about Obama and what his administration would bring re the arts. I would LOVE to meet a large group of committed Republicans artists and writers and composers instead of the occasional anecdotal one or two:)
Well, Lisa, after Jindal's performance last night, you might find him turning up at your next artist's colony, beret and all.
Joe, they would never let him in. He's an effing IDIOT!!!
But Lisa, I dont think being an idiot would stop anyone from being either a politician or a poet. On the contrary. It might seem as a qualification. Well ok, I'm willing to compromise with you on this one. I think we can agree that he definitely needs to get on SNL. Let's see what kind of impersonation Tina can do of him...
Oh Joe you have a point there. I have met some idiot poets in my life. But somehow I don't see Bobby J as a poet. He is some stiff neck, huh? I DO want to see somebody do him on SNL, though. What a hoot!!!!!
Probably because writers and artists hate Republicans so much.
Feelings make robots nervous.
You know, sometimes I think there's some Jungian aspect to all of this, at the risk of sounding heavy-handed. If our creative side is connected or synonymous to a feminine aspect to our consciousness, then we're in trouble creatively. That side will be considered weak, emotional, fragile, unpredictable and possibly...useless. Our Male Scale is out of whack, in a nutshell...and it affects the arts.
Your post caught my eye, and it was well worth reading. The question of why conservatives have such an aversion toward the arts is interesting. Clearly not all of them feel this way in their own personal lives; but many of them do really think that classical music and literature and painting are utterly useless, and therefore beneath consideration for funding.

My father was a conservative, although not a politician. One of his favorite authors was James Michner, yet I did manage to get him interested in some Updike novels a couple of times.

I think conservatives see the fine arts as a sheer luxury, rather than a vital necessity for growth in both spirit and thought. Their short-sightedness toward the future probably results from their nostalgic and perhaps even obsessive gaze over the past.
Thanks for the very intelligent comments from the recent readers!
I agree with all you said and have rated this post accordingly. But really, Republicans they want to shut down people's ability to think critically, reason for themselves, AND want to stamp out compassion, education and civilization in others because smart critically thinking people are MUCH harder to manipulate through fear.

So they want a bunch of fearful ninnies who wouldn't be caught dead in a museum or a concert hall, and who think books are for girly-men. I mean, you let the rabble get ideas through reading books and articles, and eventually they'll catch on that to vote Republican is to vote against their own interessts. It leads to all KINDS of problems for an authoritarian political party. The biggest of which is the bottom falling out of their voting bloc when everyone finally sees what a bunch of idiots they really are. Hitler controlled the arts, and so did Stalin. Closing down people's minds and cutting off their access to thoughts that challenge the regime just won't do.
I commented on Saturn's post about arts funding, but I'm getting really effing worked up. If I were wearing blinders right now, I'd still see the quirky icons on my dashboard = ART. I'd see the nature photos shuffling on my desktop = ART. And if I were to put myself behind even Cheney's specs, at this moment, I'd still see a bedroom decorated by an interior decorator, a lovely dresser against the wall, drapes made out of some kind of fabric that someone dreamed up, lamps made by someone who went to art school and specialized in lighting. You can't escape ART. It is an impulse that someone, thank God, has chosen to honor. Not funding that impulse is, well, vulgar. Without the student who believes in creativity, where would they (Republicans, I guess) get their fancy cars, who would design their mansions (and why is that feminine?), and at the very least, who would write the eloquent speeches required in times of crises?
I take that back. Jindal doesn't have a speechwriter.
Lots of great comments on here, Lisa! Great topic. And I am also so glad to see Republicans, or people defending Republicans (or that leaning, since Republicans are people too (!!) with a full spectrum of beliefs), just because I really truly am baffled by their thinking. Also the comments here have not devolved into shrieking which is so nice too, since I can't stand the comments on posts that turn into insult fests.

With regard to the Republican argument about public spending for the arts, I really, really like Cindy Ross' comment below (I mean above), in which she lays out a great argument for the need for public spending for those of us who don't have the cash to have a Renoir hanging in the dining room. Or in my case, don't have the cash for a dining room!!
Dammit, put the Renoir over the bed!
And yes, isn't it nice that people have had such a lovely discussion without resorting to fisticuffs! I did say on another post how lovely it has been to never have had to delete a comment...... Perhaps it is because I don't write about rape and things. I just write about politics mostly. HA!
Ms. Warren, you've roused me. I'm not the journalist or writer you are, but would nonetheless love to know what you think of this:

http://open.salon.com/blog/bryan/2009/03/09/life_art_hate_death_and_the_gop

Regardless, thanks for the terrific post.
I want to be as open as I can for all sides here. Number 1, I commend the person who wrote this blog. I'm glad someone is speaking up for the arts. I've always loved to draw. There's something about it,that always calmed my nerves. Not everyone is born with the same traits as the next kid. Number 2, is this really a republican vs. democrat kind of thing? Because ,if it is, I don't even have the first clue how to determine,why it would be. I try on a daily basis, to not believe that we are seriously so against each other,whether republican or democrat,....atheist or Christian,......artist or non-artist. I haven't met a person on the planet yet who can explain to me what the purposes of being democrat or republican even are in the first place, and what either of them have to do with why I like being an artist. Because it doesn't make a difference with who would try to stop me from being one. I get told all the time,that "Son, God has blessed you with a gift", but you know something? Something with the way the air flows through social communication,tells me that alot of Republican minds are grounded in religion(the study of God's word). I could be totally wrong,but I just don't understand how it could only be Republican forces that are against artistic funding & study in our schools,anymore than I could understand why someone might think that Democrats are the "only" ones standing in the way of there being a moment of silence in school everyday for kids that wish to pray. The political stuff is why we seem to hate each other so much. I would just like some clearer answers, from everyone. Because it never seems to add up,no matter what I try.