With less than two months left before the next U.S. president is elected, ScienceBlogs wanted to dedicate a space to campaign politics. A Vote For Science is a group blog that will focus on the candidates' science policies. It is 
I caught a bit on National Public Radio this morning but was distracted and pulling into my destination so all I really caught was "Do we need a Culture Czar?".
The bit can be heard here.
Now as it turns out this is really about creating a Cabinet level position for the Arts. The web blurb reads:
The idea of a Cabinet-level official for the arts has gotten some buzz lately. After all, many other countries have ministers of culture. High-profile artists such as Quincy Jones think it's necessary in the U.S., but not everyone agrees.
Part of this buzz, I suppose, was this editorial from William Ferris in the NYT:
Over the years, America has developed an impressive array of federal cultural programs -- in addition to the endowments for the arts and the humanities. These include the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Institute of Museum and Library Services, the Library of Congress, the National Archives, NPR, PBS and the Smithsonian Institution....
But as chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities from 1997 to 2001, I learned firsthand that these institutions, though united by a shared goal, can sometimes run into conflict with one another. There were bureaucratic tangles, overlaps and missteps that, with foresight, could have been avoided.
I'm disappointed. I think the idea of a Culture Czar is really good. But what we need is a Cabinet level position which advances the cultural values that are associated with this Presidental election. Namely the rejection of a culture of ignorance, anti science and hate politics. The bushrovian strategy of pitting groups against each other by playing on ignorant fears.
So for me, a Culture Czar can advance the humanities, sure. But how about one that advances knowledge and creation and education and GoodStuff all across the board?
Humanities & Social Science
Politics
Comments
Now will this include NASCAR and pro-wrestling so the folk who consider those art will be happy?
Posted by: Rob Jase | January 16, 2009 2:21 PM
I'm all for the elimination of anti-science and ignorance, but the idea of a political appointee deciding what is and isn't art is even more frightenening than having folks in DC decide what research is funded and which is not.
Posted by: Matt | April 13, 2009 9:17 PM
Yes...and he should appoint Perez Hilton to the position
Posted by: Ron Pumpkin | October 12, 2009 11:34 PM