Yard Signs, or, Is the Election Over Yet?

The time has come again - the midterm elections are creeping upon us. Signs are adorning yards, ads are on the air. The typical politics of politicking [sic] is everywhere you look. Who should we elect? Does it matter?

Especially in local politics where the even the liberals are conservative, does anything really change our landscape?

Let it be known before hand, that while I certainly have a political orientation, culturepulse.org does not. Our agenda here is simply for the arts. That being said, I will try my hardest to not drip my own persuasion all over this post. Since I will most likely fail, let me give a pre-enmptive whoops.

I want to talk about the arts and politics. Many do not know, and I realize this is contentious, that the arts are subsidized on a federal and local level. The National Endowment for the Arts receives its funding from the national legislature, and the North Dakota Council on the arts receives it statewide.

It is important, then, that supporters of the arts support candidates who support the arts. Make sense, right?

Let's talk about about the National Endowment for the Arts. The purpose of this overly-criticized organization is to support public access to the arts. Right now, advocates are urging Congress to support a budget of $170 million for the NEA in the FY07 Interior Appropriations bill to increase funding for the creation, preservation, and presentation of the arts in America through the NEA’s core programs—Access to Artistic Excellence, Challenge America: Reaching Every Community, Federal/State Partnerships, and Learning in the Arts.

[link to NEA talking points and informational statistics]

I'll let you know, as a point of reference, that the Mapplethorpe exhibits are a small, small minority of what is actually funded out there. For instance - my agency, the Marketing Services Partnership, which brings you culturepulse.org, is the recipient of a Challenge America Grant.

As it stands right now, the NEA funding is in a bit of hold-up. [From ArtsUSA] As expected, it appears that Congress will put off appropriations legislation and pass a continuing resolution through November, when they will return for a lame-duck session to finish the appropriations process. Congress is also expected to wrap-up numerous appropriations bills—including those that fund the NEA—into one large "omnibus" bill, which may not pass until after the November elections.

Apparently, and I've only heard this through the grapevine, our own Sen. Byron Dorgan is one of the committee members that is not interested in funding an increase. Dorgan is the ranking member of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, which is reviewing the NEA's appropriation. On the other side of the aisle, (and the river) Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) has circulated a "Dear Colleague" letter to his Senate colleagues, asking their support for an increase of five to 10 million dollars for FY 2007.

Politicking aside, Dorgan is typically a supporter of the arts. As it stands right now, Dorgan and Conrad (who is up for election) have a 100% voting record with Americans for the Arts in terms of supporting arts. Rep. Pomeroy comes in close, only voting "against the arts" on three bills, one of which would have increased the NEA funding. We can't know his reasons for those votes, however. We must assume he is a supporter of the arts, since he voted positively in 22 cases.

While there are a ton of reasons the arts are important, it is most important that people get out and vote. Find out what is important to your candidates, do not just vote on party lines. This goes local all the way to the top. In the 2004 election, much to do was occurring in my parents house when we would all get together. My parents took a different route in voting than my sister and I. Based solely on concepts rather than issues. I bet if you dug up my parents voting records, they have voted one way their entire lives (for the most part... ND is a unique state, in that we are RED, but send the BLUE to DC). My voting record is spotty at best. I doubt that either party really wants me - I just simply can't be trusted.

Those that know me would assume my blood flowed blue, but in reality, would be shocked to learn I worked on a republican presidential campaign in the lead up to 2000.

Granted as I get older, it is easier to formulate personal dogma and vote according to that, and typically one party will personally triumph over the other.

That being said, North Dakotans are unique in the sense that we don't have to register. We don't really have to chose party affiliation.

As the election draws near, I urge people to focus on issues of importance - education, social welfare, economics, the conflict in Iraq, national policy and the safety of our way of life, both in terms of national security and in terms of personal liberty. Many of these topics were noticeably lacking in the last election. Republicans launched what appeared to be a tactic of scaring and the Democrats responded in-kind. Both parties failed in the last election. Both. Bi-partisan politics and the electoral system work in some situations, but I would be willing to bet that mainstream America could find a candidate in the last election that wasn't polarized on one side of the aisle or the other. In the same way, we continue to have a polarized country.

What issues are dominating the headlines? Gay marriage, abortion, social morality and Iraq. Where are the stories about the social welfare of our country? Where are the stories about the local issues? Where are the stories about the failure that is our public education system? Where are the stories about our loss of industry and jobs? Those are all again missing. The national media fuel the polarization. It's a vicious cycle.

Politics are a personal journey. Find a candidate, regardless of party affiliation, and judge them on the merits of their issues, not what animal mascot adorns their letterhead.

What does it mean, anyway? My friend Scott (who is on the opposite side of the political spectrum than I) have long discussions about how republicans are the new democrats and democrats are the new republicans. Politics have become so cyclical that the labels mean nothing anymore.

It reminds me of Barry Goldwater, the favorite "old conservative". Goldwater is often considered the father of the modern conservative movement — he was a libertarian republican who despised big government.

However, Goldwater on many occasions has blasted his own party as it moved towards the policy of morality. As early as a Sept. 15, 1981, Senate speech, Goldwater noted that Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, anti-abortion groups and other religious right groups were sometimes referred to in the press as the "New Right" and the "New Conservatism." Responded Goldwater, "Well, I've spent quite a number of years carrying the flag of the 'Old Conservatism.' And I can say with conviction that the religious issues of these groups have little or nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics. The uncompromising position of these groups is a divisive element that could tear apart the very spirit of our representative system, if they gain sufficient strength."

Now, I'm not making any comment on Barry Goldwater as a person or as a congressman. I'm simply throwing forward one of the republican old guard, considered the quinessential conservative messiah by many, who was a supporter of a women's right to chose and gay unions.

So, where is the label in that?

Let's drop the labels and vote for representation that is logical and supportive of our growth as a community, as a nation, and as a people.

Get out the vote. Or else.