The Secretary of Culture

Last night I was at the 9:30 Club taking in a show that consisted of My Favorite Highway, Carolina Liar, We the Kings and The Academy Is... For those that haven't been the 9:30 Club is a fantastic venue as can be seen from this picture:

Belle & Sebastian (from wikipedia)

But this isn't a music review. As I watched the show I couldn't help but think about the fact that it was all accomplished without direct government intervention. The venue was privately built, the tickets were sold by a non-government agency, the bands were not the recipients of government grants, etc. I suspect that for most people this is blindingly obvious and unremarkable.

Perhaps.

In many countries, however, the support of cultural endeavors is seen as a government responsibility. The United Kingdom for example has a Department for Culture, Media and Sport whose stated goals include "to champion the tourism, creative and leisure industries." Ireland has the Irish Film Board whose job is to promote the Irish film industry as well as a Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. These aren't exceptional. Norway has a Ministry of Culture and Church Affairs whose main task is to "to develop and implement national cultural policy." France is famous for its many government efforts in place to promote the country's culture.

What have these countries achieved through such efforts? Does European culture dominate? Has anyone gone out to see an Irish film lately? I am doubtful. American culture is arguably the pre-eminent culture the world over. In just about any corner of the planet you find yourself in chances are you can see an American movie, listen to American music and buy a Coke. It is worth pointing out that the U.S. is also home to the world's most prestigious baseball, basketball and ice hockey leagues.

I can already hear the retorts: "That is not culture, that's gauche American crap." Maybe. But it is also wildly popular. But even if you restrict the meaning of culture to "higher" art forms such as operas, symphonies and museums this country still does pretty well. We are the home of the Guggenheim, MoMA, Phillips Collection, Broadway as well as any number of philharmonics and the like.

I do not write this post, however, to pick the low hanging fruit of making fun of Europeans or get in a tit-for-tat over culture. The larger point is the role of government. Despite -- and likely because of -- the absence of a U.S. Department of Culture/Art/Sport the U.S. excels at all of these fields. I doubt it has occurred to most of us that such a government body is even needed.

To me this begs the question of how many government agencies that currently exist are unnecessary? Keep in mind that George Washington's first cabinet consisted of three departments -- war, state and treasury -- along with the Attorney General. We currently have 14 cabinet departments that cover such areas as housing and urban development, commerce and veteran's affairs.

Perhaps my favorite is the Department of Agriculture. What would happen if it were abolished? Would we all starve? Would farmers cease plowing their fields? Would grocery stores shelves suddenly go bare? What about the Department of Education? Would schools suddenly shut? Would students cease learning? What exactly does it contribute? We were all half-starved ignoramuses before these departments were created?

We have been conditioned to accept the need for such things because it's the way things have been for as long as some of us can remember. It is helpful, however, to remember Ronald Reagan's famous quip that, "There is nothing so permanent as a temporary government program." It would be wise for us to at least pause, and consider whether so much of what the government does is actually necessary or even beneficial. Indeed, truly bold thinking from our politicians would not be to create a new government program or agency in response to every real or perceived crisis, but an embrace of freedom.