The NEA "Scandal": That's It?
Right wing bloggers are all hyperventilating today over a supposed "scandal" involving the National Endowment of the Arts. The basis of the hysteria is this post over at Andrew Breitbart's Big Hollywood site (the same outfit that posted the ACORN "sting" videos).
The site has posted a recording and transcript of a conference call that it describes as "explosive." The call is actually old news at this point, having already been hyped by Glenn Beck an others weeks ago, so I'm not sure what all the excitement is about.
Though I have better things to do, I actually read through the transcript of the call just now to see if there was really anything "explosive" inside. There wasn't.
The post claims, as Beck did previously, that this call proves that the Obama administration is using the NEA for partisan political purposes, and strongly implies (without actually saying so) that NEA money is somehow being funneled to progressives causes.
But the call is actually far more benign. It appears to have been organized by a group of progressive artists who want to, through their art, raise public awareness about various issues they care about. Invited to participate on the call were a low-level staffer from the White House Office of Public Engagement and the former Communications Director at the NEA (he was apparently transferred to another position at the NEA after this story broke).
When asked to speak, the White House staffer gives some boilerplate talking points about how the art community can really make a difference politically if they put their minds to it. The NEA communications guy is then given a similar chance to talk and says much of the same things, indicating how happy he is to be working at the NEA and encouraging the artists on the call to get involved.
In terms of optics, it was certainly not a good idea for the NEA communications director to participate in such a call (which is probably why he is not the communications director anymore). That organization is not supposed to be involved in political advocacy.
But unless Breitbart's got a lot more, this is the political equivalent of jaywalking. Neither the NEA nor the White House organized this call and the staffers on the call basically gave boilerplate cheerleading remarks. There is nothing in the call that suggests that NEA money or grants were being funneled to progressive artists or anything of the sort. And the White House is of course free to participate on calls with supporters and encourage them to be pro-active. That's what the Office of Public Engagement does.
What's ironic (though not at all surprising) is that the very kind of allegation that is being leveled here was repeatedly proven to have occurred during the Bush administration, and in far more significant contexts. Monica Goodling was hiring and firing prosecutors, both U.S. Attorneys and DOJ line prosecutors, based on political criteria. Lurita Doan used the General Services Administration to "help" GOP candidates for office (and was eventually forced to resign). There were many other such examples, and the reaction to all of them by the Andrew Breitbarts of the world was a collective yawn.
If Breitbart can produce any actual evidence that NEA resources or money were being improperly used for political purposes, I'll join him in calling for an investigation and for accountability. But this recorded call is pretty weak tea, especially by Bush era standards.
The site has posted a recording and transcript of a conference call that it describes as "explosive." The call is actually old news at this point, having already been hyped by Glenn Beck an others weeks ago, so I'm not sure what all the excitement is about.
Though I have better things to do, I actually read through the transcript of the call just now to see if there was really anything "explosive" inside. There wasn't.
The post claims, as Beck did previously, that this call proves that the Obama administration is using the NEA for partisan political purposes, and strongly implies (without actually saying so) that NEA money is somehow being funneled to progressives causes.
But the call is actually far more benign. It appears to have been organized by a group of progressive artists who want to, through their art, raise public awareness about various issues they care about. Invited to participate on the call were a low-level staffer from the White House Office of Public Engagement and the former Communications Director at the NEA (he was apparently transferred to another position at the NEA after this story broke).
When asked to speak, the White House staffer gives some boilerplate talking points about how the art community can really make a difference politically if they put their minds to it. The NEA communications guy is then given a similar chance to talk and says much of the same things, indicating how happy he is to be working at the NEA and encouraging the artists on the call to get involved.
In terms of optics, it was certainly not a good idea for the NEA communications director to participate in such a call (which is probably why he is not the communications director anymore). That organization is not supposed to be involved in political advocacy.
But unless Breitbart's got a lot more, this is the political equivalent of jaywalking. Neither the NEA nor the White House organized this call and the staffers on the call basically gave boilerplate cheerleading remarks. There is nothing in the call that suggests that NEA money or grants were being funneled to progressive artists or anything of the sort. And the White House is of course free to participate on calls with supporters and encourage them to be pro-active. That's what the Office of Public Engagement does.
What's ironic (though not at all surprising) is that the very kind of allegation that is being leveled here was repeatedly proven to have occurred during the Bush administration, and in far more significant contexts. Monica Goodling was hiring and firing prosecutors, both U.S. Attorneys and DOJ line prosecutors, based on political criteria. Lurita Doan used the General Services Administration to "help" GOP candidates for office (and was eventually forced to resign). There were many other such examples, and the reaction to all of them by the Andrew Breitbarts of the world was a collective yawn.
If Breitbart can produce any actual evidence that NEA resources or money were being improperly used for political purposes, I'll join him in calling for an investigation and for accountability. But this recorded call is pretty weak tea, especially by Bush era standards.
posted by A.L. at 12:23 PM
25 Comments:
AL- if I understand your defense of this call, it is that (1) the call was organized by a group of progressive artists, not by the NEA or WH; (2) the WH and NEA reps were merely invited to make a few boilerplate remarks about the importance of “getting involved” or “making a difference”; and (3) there is no evidence that NEA money or resources were being improperly used for political purposes.
Before getting to these points, I would note that this call clearly shows that supposedly independent artists are coordinating with the White House about how their art can be used for political purposes. Now there is not, as far as I know, anything illegal about this. But suppose you had evidence that the producers of 24 had coordinated with Karl Rove about how they might promote the administration’s anti-terrorism policies in the upcoming season. Tell me that you wouldn’t find this scandalous.
As for the organization of the call, the transcript seems to indicate that the gentleman who organized the call, Mr. Skolnick, did so at the request of “folks in the White House and folks in the NEA.” The representative from the WH (“Buffy”!) is introduced as “one of the people who spearheaded this initiative from the beginning.” And throughout the call it is emphasized that this call is just the start of a process in which the WH/NEA will be communicating and coordinating messaging with this group.
Second, it is clear that the agenda of this call was explicitly political, not just about “getting involved” in some abstract way. There are repeated references to the work that the members of the group did for Obama during the campaign. When Buffy speaks, she tells the group that we “need your help” to further Obama’s “aggressive agenda.” She then tells them that there would be “specific asks” to accomplish this task. This was not just some vague cheerleading.
Finally, the fact that Yosi was participating in the call at all is evidence that NEA resources were being used improperly for political purposes. In and of itself this may be the equivalent of “political jaywalking” as you say, but it is the same thing that got Lurita Doan in trouble. In any event, it should be obvious that an organization which gives out public grant money to artists should not be involved in asking artists to help further a political agenda.
As for the possibility that NEA grant money would be used for artists that promote the president’s agenda, the call does not prove that this has happened, but it certainly suggests the possibility. As one of the speakers notes, “the president has a clear arts agenda and has been very supportive of using art and supporting art in creative ways to talk about some of the issues that we face here in our country and also to engage people.” I think a reasonable observer could conclude that artists who find creative ways to advance the president’s agenda might have an easier time getting support from the NEA.
MLS,
First, I fully agree that the NEA guy should not have been on the phone. But your comparison to the Lurita Doan episode is incredibly weak. Doan was the director of the GSA and she actually convened a bunch of meetings to try to assist GOP candidates. This Yosi guy was a communications guy at NEA and all he did (that we know about) is participate on conference call that a third party initiated. A whole lot more shoes would have to drop before this got even into the same ballpark as the Doan episode (and the Doan episode was rather tame by Bush politicization standards).
Moreover, there's nothing at all wrong or problematic about the White House asking its supporters to do things to promote issues and affect the national conversation (that's what these White House outreach offices exist to do).
Keeping things in perspective requires me to point out that Fox News has been coordinating its message with the GOP forever, yet the right wing is up in arms about this?
Yes, government money should not be going for propaganda -- but it's the propaganda I object to more than the money for it.
Given the historical effectiveness of the arts in furthering political agendas, I've got to say that I'm more offended by the possible waste of time and money than any coordination between the WH and "progressive artists".
Also, anybody seen any successful reactionary artists?
If I remember history class, Stalin, Hitler, Chairman Mao, and Castro all used the artists to promote their dictatorships. So what's new? Obama is doing just the same.
Anonymous, I realize that you are so intellectually stunted, that you probably thought that your "Stalin, Hitler.." blast was somehow witty or accurate. Here's a hint, it wasn't.
As anyone with a real grasp of history knows, Hitler and Stalin had atrocious taste in art. Both regimes significantly purged their artistic communities as the leadership grew more insane. Stalin's obsession with "Soviet Realism" alienated virtually the entire Soviet film community, most famously Eisenstein. Hitler tried to go as far as to ban Jazz music, although he had to softpedal there when his officers in France showed a fondness for Django Reinhardt music.
Of course, the US did maintain strict censorship over art and cinema in post-war Japan. Those dastardly dictator Americans?
I get it. Conservatives don't really like art. It's mostly because they aren't smart enough to understand even rudimentary stuff. In their pea brains, Serrano and Mappelthorpe are still front and center in artistic sensibilities.
BTW, Drudge hasn't really given this "scandal" the full banner headline siren treatment, so there's no there there.
BUsh would have loved to use actual artists to promote his dictatorship but, no one was interested. His use of Fox as a propaganda tool was much closer to what happened with those dictators you remember from history class. And, lets not forget the pentagons' analyst progam which was pure propoganda from people who gained financially from the war.
The call was arranged by Yosi Sergant; he wasn't just some passive participant. (see here
If you're going to defend, AL, at least acquaint yourself with the facts.
“A call has come in to our generation. A call from the top. A call from a house that is White. A call that we must answer. And to answer it, we need you.”
All I can say is that if the person who wrote that is getting NEA money, we should start impeachment proceedings immediately.
Yeah, this is totally silly. The dumbest part is the allegations of NEA funding being used to leverage people who weren't otherwise interested in making the art. That's just nonsense. The NEA funding that happened in the stimulus package was only given to groups already receiving NEA money so they didn't have to cut staff.
Individual artists aren't eligible to receive grant money!
Standard right-wing trick: attack your opponent on his strong points.
Bush was a deserter, Kerry courageously went to war: depict him as a quitter instead.
Limbaugh and Beck spew racist bile: accuse Obama of being a racist and Sotomayor of being a "reverse racist" instead.
The Justice Department colludes with the political arm of the White House to prosecute Democrats and to burrow Republican operatives into career positions in the machinery: accuse the White House and NEA (arts people, for crying out loud! How much less political influence can one group have?) of politicising everything.
It are pre-emptive attacks as well. After having called a particular attack ridiculous after it's been leveled at you, you would look slightly stupid if you then turned around and used it against your political opponents, in the eyes of those political opponents - who happen to be quite apt at setting the media's agenda...
This post has been removed by the author.
the n f*cking e a???
conservatives are afraid of art???
geez, grow some balls, cons!
acorn and art -- oooooh, that's scary, keeds!!
But suppose you had evidence that the producers of 24 had coordinated with Karl Rove about how they might promote the administration’s anti-terrorism policies in the upcoming season.
Or suppose that the Bush White House paid certain reporters under the table to create a positive spin on their policies. Oh wait…
As for the possibility that NEA grant money would be used for artists that promote the president’s agenda, the call does not prove that this has happened, but it certainly suggests the possibility.
By all means, let's create an independent prosecutor to look into this egregious unlikely possibility.
The NEA has been a favorite target of conservatives since it was established. As 'Holy Moly!' noted:
'Individual artists aren't eligible to receive grant money!'
Does everyone remember why this is? It is because of the White House attack on the NEA during the Reagan Administration (which was narrowly fended off by Congress), which was obsessed with ending federal funding of 'obscene' art... but really the point was to kill the NEA because the NEA is one of the two main organizations that funds public television and public television was considered a subversive influence. Louis Reukeyser and William F. Buckley Jr. were dangerous Communists, you see.
Though the Reagan attack started the process, Democrats did the damage. Clinton and the Blue Dogs cut the NEA budget and made individual artists ineligible to receive direct grants as a compromise to prevent the Gingrich Congress from killing the NEA entirely. Once again the excuse was 'obscene art' and the real target was public television... and NPR, which had emerged as highly critical of the Gingrich crowd and was winning listeners at a much higher ratings block than public television was gaining viewers.
Right wingers don't like artists, even when they claim to like art. Artists are lazy perverts who need to get real jobs and who are trying to make a career out of what should be a hobby and getting the government to pay them for it. They don't think the government should be paying for art at all, and they think public television and NPR (which are both heavily funded by the NEA) are dangerous socialist agencies that give the government too much power.
Any attack on the NEA by conservatives is inherently suspect and the burden of proof of those attacks rests on the attackers. For the simple reason that the history of bias is too strong for the attack itself to be given credence just because someone says it.
AL?
MichaelW has a link above,
of the NEA email, posted online since August 31.
Great researh there buddy.
Welcome to the machine, lightweight.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/08/31/contradictions-are-revealing-politicizing-the-nea/
Care to deal with that?
That link doesn't prove anything. It seems to show that Sergant forwarded along the conference call invite to some people (not that he sent it out in the first place). Either way, though, I was already clear that I think it was poor judgment by Sargent to participate at all.
The bottomline, though, is that all that is even being alleged here is that someone from the NEA participated in a call that encouraged artists to express themselves politically. No one is even alleging that NEA money or resources were doled out in a political way.
The Bush administration engaged in far more egregious politicization of federal agencies, including the NEA itself. It's as if Breitbart were in a coma from 2000-2008.
Let's not forget that the Lurita Doan thing was a meeting held on government property. While the WH guy was probably on government property, the rest of the people on the phone call certainly were not, and the meeting itself could not be said to have been conducted on government property.
I'm not sure how relevant that is at this point in the discussion, but the comparison was made, and a.l. said merely that it was "weak." It was beyond weak.
"Monica Goodling was hiring and firing prosecutors, both U.S. Attorneys and DOJ line prosecutors, based on political criteria. Lurita Doan used the General Services Administration to "help" GOP candidates for office (and was eventually forced to resign). "
Actually, the Obama Admin is doing this too: Gerald Walpin who by-the-way was not a POLITICAL appointee as the Goodling firings allegedly involved. Only it is not being by a lowly no-name underling, but by the President himself to protect a crony.
And, as a noble community organizer, Obama helped ACORN do far more with direct government financing than Doan did (although he suddenly claims to have been just an attorney helping one out of many clients).
But the NEA scandal get's to the heart of the problem Obama's critics have with his designs on the health care industries, the auto industry, and the banking industry. This is an agency that doles out taxpayer money based on shadowy and subjective criteria, telling artists the kind of art it likes and how to get NEA attention. The Obama Administration has already shown a transparent readiness to use the $$ it controls to punish its enemies and help its friends. (Remember the suspicious peculiar slant in favor of Democratic contributors in the car dealership closings.)
"This is an agency that doles out taxpayer money based on shadowy and subjective criteria, telling artists the kind of art it likes and how to get NEA attention."
This is the kind of statement I was talking about, in fact, when I said that right wing attacks on the NEA are inherently worthy of critical analysis. Let's look at this description closely.
'This is an agency that doles out taxpayer money based on shadowy and subjective criteria...'
This is a lie or a statement of ignorance. One can find all the criteria used for NEA grants itemized and listed very specifically by category. More importantly, the criteria have only changed once: when the process of awarding individual grants to individual artists was ended under the Clinton Administration. Otherwise, the criteria have remained the same regardless of who has occupied the White House or controlled Congress.
Indeed, the number one right wing objection for many years was that the NEA was not discriminate enough and did not properly practice censorship. They gave just any artist money for any reason without bothering to find out just whether his art was 'worthy' of government funding or not. Though the individual grants were ended, the organizations receiving individual grants are still awarded by the same criteria individuals had been... with eligible organizations receiving grants regardless of their political affiliation or non-affiliation or subjective review of the 'artistic worthiness.'
So the number one complaint by those now claiming bias and subjectivity is that the NEA has always been unbiased and objective in its grant policy.
'telling artists the kind of art it likes and how to get NEA attention.'
This part is sort of disproved by the disproving of the former. One gets NEA attention by applying for a grant, if one meets the publicly posted standards and restrictions than one receives a grant. While this certainly does tell people how to get NEA attention, it is very much the opposite of telling people what kind of art the NEA likes.
"One can find all the criteria used for NEA grants itemized and listed very specifically by category."
Please point to the specific criteria that greenlit Robert Mapplethorpe’s homoerotic photographs, Karen Finley’s chocolate-smeared performance pieces, and Andres Serrano’s urine-immersed crucifix?
"the number one right wing objection for many years was that the NEA was not discriminate enough and did not properly practice censorship."
Actually the number one right wing objection was that there is nothing in the constitution that allows the Federal government to dole out money for artistic performances.
"So the number one complaint by those now claiming bias and subjectivity is that the NEA has always been unbiased and objective in its grant policy."
I notice that the NEA has never given money for the commissioning of a new hymn. Of course, the NEA has bias. But until now, no Democratic administration has attempted to direct those bias for its own temporary policy goals.
"One gets NEA attention by applying for a grant, if one meets the publicly posted standards and restrictions than one receives a grant."
Not in the Obama administration. One can gain the ex parte attention of the NEA by attending a meeting where you can present yourself as one of the "good guy" artists.
You seem to be over-looking the fact that Yosi Sergant's job before being assigned to the NEA was to rally support from artists and to commission them to create art in support of Obama. He commissioned and promulgated the famous "HOPE" poster. He coordinated the "ManifestHOPE" art exhibit. His participation in this call was NOT passive. Listen again to him on the tape. He has specific "Asks" for the artists on the call and they are for the artists to create product specifically to support the President's agenda. This is exactly what he had been doing for the past two years with the Obama Campaign. Do we really think that in getting this appointment there wasn't some thought put into the idea that Yosi should continue his efforts but with a bigger bankroll, the NEA budget?
James said...
"One can find all the criteria used for NEA grants itemized and listed very specifically by category."
Please point to the specific criteria that greenlit Robert Mapplethorpe’s homoerotic photographs, Karen Finley’s chocolate-smeared performance pieces, and Andres Serrano’s urine-immersed crucifix?
You'd like that wouldn't you? You and your conservative fixation on excrement, homo-erotisism and chocolate. Have you ever bothered to submit a photo of Hillary immersed in Vagisil? Of course not… you just like to watch.
"the number one right wing objection for many years was that the NEA was not discriminate enough and did not properly practice censorship."
Actually the number one right wing objection was that there is nothing in the constitution that allows the Federal government to dole out money for artistic performances.
Actually, there's nothing in the constitution that allows the Federal government to dole out money for roads, banking regulation, food safety, medicare, missile defense, NASA, the electric grid, schools… wow, I could go on and on and on and on!
"So the number one complaint by those now claiming bias and subjectivity is that the NEA has always been unbiased and objective in its grant policy."
I notice that the NEA has never given money for the commissioning of a new hymn. Of course, the NEA has bias. But until now, no Democratic administration has attempted to direct those bias for its own temporary policy goals.
The NEA has also neglected to commission a new Torah, Islamic poem, Sufi dance party, Buddhist sand painting, Unitarian psalm, Satanic prayer or any other religious endeavor you neglected to mention. How would you suggest we redirect that bias?
"One gets NEA attention by applying for a grant, if one meets the publicly posted standards and restrictions than one receives a grant."
Not in the Obama administration. One can gain the ex parte attention of the NEA by attending a meeting where you can present yourself as one of the "good guy" artists.
Not in the Bush administration. One can gain the ex parte attention of the Attorney General's office by attending a meeting where you can present yourself as one of the "good guy" lawyers.
Sound familiar?
"the number one right wing objection for many years was that the NEA was not discriminate enough and did not properly practice censorship."
Actually the number one right wing objection was that there is nothing in the constitution that allows the Federal government to dole out money for artistic performances.
Actually, there's nothing in the constitution that allows the Federal government to dole out money for roads, banking regulation, food safety, medicare, missile defense, NASA, the electric grid, schools… wow, I could go on and on and on and on!
You're both wrong. Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
And Article 1, Section 9:
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
If OCngress can pass laws to "Promote the sciences and useful arts," which the President then signs (and Congress then funds through Appropriations), then the NEA, as a federal Granting Organization, is perfectly constitutional.
James said: "(Remember the suspicious peculiar slant in favor of Democratic contributors in the car dealership closings.)"
thereby showing that he has little interest in the truth,poor research skills, and a baby-like belief in lies he gets in various emails.
AL- I am sure you will check out the emails obtained by Judicial Watch on this issue (Hot Air has a summary and links). For example:
–August 10, 2009, 10:23 am: Email from Yosi Sergant to Kalpen Modi: “[The call is] organized by me…I’d ask you to come on and give the exact spiel you gave on Saturday. Walk them through the WH Arts Policy. They won’t know it. Then I will take them into United We Serve and the NEA.”
So much for this being a call organized by a group of private artists.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home