Reading & Field Log #2

Journal and Field Log #2

On a friend's Facebook page, there was a link to Romney saying he wanted to gut funding to the NEA.  Since most of my "friends" are poets, I was surprised to read quite a few that agreed with them.   A Facebook argument ensued, and one of the pro-cuts people argued, "I don't know, but knowing people who like power, it's there. Or look at it this way: I agree that Sesame Street is good programming, but not everyone does. Nevertheless, everyone pays taxes, including the people who loathe Sesame Street. Is that fair?"

I pounced on this statement with my own argument, " I don't know...I don't like the military, but I pay taxes...so why not cut the military? Or at least I shouldn't have to pay for it....I'd be fine if I could decide on what my taxes paid for...I'd fund art and not fund the military...no complaint if that's your logic."

Suddenly the argument veered off topic from whether cutting Federal arts funding was a good idea to actually what the function of government was.   He argued that the military was a "legitimate" function of government and funding the arts was not.   Legitimate as a term is pretty vague, and, of course, I seized upon it.   While he saw a sort of black and white...the powers and function of a government have traditionally provided (some argue that the reason people begin to live collectively was for protection), thus a military is a "legitimate" function of government because its always been one of the roles of government.   He fixed on this historical, traditional understanding of "legitimate," and redefined it.

I, of course, was not going to let his willingness to define, to reach some sort of fixed definition of "legitimate function" trap me into an argument of what things the government now does but aren't "legitimate."  He insisted, merely because of tradition, and an ideology that I immediately recognized as "conservative" trap me into agreeing with his terms.   Instead, I argued that we need to redefine "legitimate" not in its historical and traditional role but in trying to get the best long term impact for our country.   What that led back to was more funding for arts and education because a "legitimate" function of government would be to create an informed citizenry and an informed citizenry could govern itself.  

From there the thread went off on the value of funding education.   Strangely the argument which started about art funding was now about getting the most benefit from our tax dollars and how education is presently functioning is not seen as creating a sort of value.   While I wanted to argue whether trying to get any sort of "return on investment" in regards to education is also a flawed construction, I (and a teacher from Florida) pounced on his not making the argument that education funding was not seen as "illegitimate," but rather that it was being mismanaged.  

By avoiding the "legitimacy" argument, he'd suddenly found himself arguing under my terms.   His goal was to make the argument that education and art funding was not a legitimate function of government.   When I refused, and was not convinced, he had to then make the argument on much shakier ground.  

I suspect, had Cintron observed the interaction, that he would've noted that I refused to buy into this person's world view.  He saw the world as relying on traditional roles of government.   When I challenged that by suggesting that we could define what role we wanted our government to play...that all roles are equally valid, it changed the argument substantially.