[Still Thinking]

Eubank wants a government subsidy for the arts. Less than a decade after the book was published, Lyndon Johnson signed a law creating the National Endowment for the Arts, National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System. Have American art, radio and television improved since then? Has government involvement had a positive or negative effect? Why?

I'm going to say no, and not for artistic reasons, though I think that would probably be valid as well. I'm going to take as a given that people espousing big/powerful government principles is a bad thing. Then it follows that it's a bad idea to have government funding creative endeavors because if government decides who to fund who is likely to receive funding? Also, as a taxpayer I resent having to pay people to say things with which I disagree vehemently and make art I find offensive, especially when my counterparts on the other side of the political spectrum labor under no such burden.

[Publius]

There's a Tim Robbins film called "The Cradle Will Rock" that covers a lot of this territory. It's about Orson Welles and John Housman putting on a "labor opera" during the Depression that is funded by the government.

In a subplot, John Cusack plays young Nelson Rockefeller who is involved in privately financing a mural by a young communist artist. Cusack doesn't look like Rockefeller but has the accent and mannerisms down pat.

This film is over-the-edge liberal but is beautifully done and covers a lot of your points.