From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory,soc.culture.usa,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Kulturkampf
Date: 26 Aug 92 04:29:31 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Aug26.042931.25574
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Aug25.173822.1916@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.041343.14754@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>> So, it's okay to force culture as long as you don't ask for much money
>>> from each person you're forcing it on?  Come on now.  Even "the NEA
>>> doesn't have much effect" is a more respectable position, but BOTH are
>>> inconsistent with the principle that Fitch suggested the reason
>>> Buchanan was "wrong".  Taken as a whole, Fitch's real complaint
>>> appears to be that he doesn't like the culture Buchanan would
>>> force, but has no real objection to forcing culture.
>>
>>You're seriously equating taxation of one dollar a year upon a
>>middle-class income with, say, the violent repression of homosexuality
>>involving the jailing of harmless persons on behalf of "family
>>values"?
>
>Notice that "say".  It's where Fitch's strawman starts.  He invents a
>serious bogeyman and downplays the NEA, and suggests that that
>requires that he abandon the principle that he's been arguing for.
>In this USA, that dollar is extracted under threat of JAIL.  Even if
>we accept Fitch's strawman, the two are the SAME.  Jail is jail.
>
This whole discussion has become so bogged down in partial parallels that
it has become impossibe to decipher what position anyone is taking, other than
the obvious conservative vs. liberal breakdown.
To get this clear in my own head, I have to start over again.

First, with taxes. Let's face it, taxes support dissemination of the dominant
culture, always have, and probably always will. You send your kid to school,
the kid is taught the ideology, historical perspective and values of the
dominant culture.
	People that don't like the dominant culture, either from the left or
right and from many less easily classified perspectives as well, often want
to change the ideology, perspective and values funded by their tax dollars.
This is a democracy, and ideally the dominant culture is forged by consensus,
with everyone having an equal opportunity to be heard.
	Multiculturalism is something else. It is basically an agreement to
at least acknowledge the value of non-dominant cultures, and is envisioned by
many as an agreement to not value any group's culture over others as a nation
or smaller governing unit. The latter isn't very practical when it comes to
writing a sixth-grade history text.
	I think the types of arguments about what culture tax dollars should
support can be broken down like this:
	1) arguments that the dominant culture should shift one way or another.
	2) arguments that the ideas contrary to dominant culture should receive
		some funding.
	3) arguments for censorship of certain ideas.

	Here is where the liberals who want to fund the NEA differ from the
conservatives who want to either cut off all funding to the NEA or censor
its funding on a "decency" basis. The liberals are arguing that non-mainstream
ideas should be funded. The conservatives, most of whom never get on the
"art shouldn't need taxpayer money" bandwagon until the Mappelthorpe publicity,
are arguing that this kind of support of non-mainstream ideas should either be
revoked or censored.

	The primary issue of this thread, though, is the *tactics* used to
influence culture, and whether or not Buchanan would support fascist tactics.
	Using tax dollars to promote cultural values is not fascist. If you
believe that tax dollars should never be used to promote any cultural ideas
or values at all, well, that's an interesting political theory. But drawing a
parallel between taxation for the purpose of funding dissemination of culture
(within which the NEA is a tiny, tiny blip) and the jailing of dissenters is
one of the silliest things I've ever read.
	It is true that both left and right wing groups use tactics grounded
in an assumption that the government-supported dominant culture is out of line
with the people, that the process has been co-opted in some way and is not
democratic. If the system isn't democratic, it's not hard to justify a certain
amount of antagonism directed at the system. Everyone doing this believes their
theory of which way the system is co-opted is correct, and some are right.
	Where the line is drawn between legitimate activism and harmful activity
is a more difficult question. We can all probably agree that terrorism is
going too far; but what if you're living in mainland China? Some people believe
the U.S government is functionally just as corrupt and undemocratic. I
still would argue, even to those that believe violent overthrow of their
government is justified, that such tactics as attacking hospitals are out of
line.
	Buchanan, as far as I know, has not led his followers toward the
kind of antagonism of the dominant structure seen among radical leftists or
rightists. I'm not satisfied he wouldn't if the center of American politics
were to veer to the left, but that's not the issue before us.
	Even though Buchanan is not the Republican's nominee, he is part of
the Republican power structure now. He represents a constituency within the
party, and Bush knows that to please that constituency, he has to be more like
Buchanan. So the real issue is, even for this election year, what would Buchanan
do if he were in power?
	My answer to that, based on my understanding of Buchanan's writings and
recent speech is: racist fascism. Reinstating and enforcing anti-homosexuality
laws would be just the beginning.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:42839 misc.legal:16694