Budget Hangover

Why has the furor over arts funding fizzled?

It's been about a week since Budget ’09, and all is quiet on the Culture front. At least… it’s been quiet online.

There’s a smattering of righteous anger about the $25M set aside for Luminato’s Canada Prizes for the Arts and Creativity over at Praxis. But, mind you, at the time of this writing, only 9 comments have been posted. And The Art of the Business’s round-up of the budget’s art funding hasn’t generated a lot of discussion either.

In fact, comments have been down across the board. In the G&M’s story about arts funding, only 49 people have voiced their opinions. Which could be construed as a good number, but it’s nothing compared to the hundreds of comments the G&M was generating when the Liberal/NDP coalition was a near reality.

Blogs that I expected to hear from – Department of Culture, One Big Umbrella, The Wrecking Ball – have been mum on the Budget. And yes, I realize that I’m a big ol’ Mr. Pot pointing fingers at a bunch of Mr. Kettles: the first time this blog actually started to get some attention was when I was all about political activism.

So, what gives? What happened to our united front? Why are have we retreated into the dark corner like a pimply tween that snuck into a high school dance?

Did we get what we wanted after all?

---

Update: Oops, didn't mean to leave you out Starving Artist. Nice read and responses.

Spite seems to work for the Arts

Budget Day 2009

So, on top of the $160 million in new Arts & Culture funding already announced, there might be additional funds hidden in the rest of Budget 2009, to be read later today.

Pretty amazing turnaround from a few months ago, hey? Maybe you're like me and you're asking, "What gives?".

This might help. I was digging around the webbernet and found this little tidbit buried in the G&M's "Spector-Vision" blog:

Today, on the front page of La Presse, the newly-minted minister of cultural heritage, James Moore, is promising $160 million for culture. Recall, that it was a $45 million reduction in funding that many observers believe was the reason the Conservatives were denied a majority in October. Asked what he had to say to the Bloc which has been demanding the restoration of those funds, Mr. Moore lets the cat out of the bag:

"They've been demanding $45 million? We're talking $160 million. If the Bloc Québécois, the Liberals and the NDP vote against the budget, they'll prove they're liars about being the great defenders of artists."

Kinda sounds like the new Conservative Culture policy basically amounts to: "So THERE!"

In any case... works for me!

Let's see what other tidbits they announce later this afternoon...

Attention Writers!

Full text of Barack Obama's Inaugural Address:

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.

For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.

Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.

Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

This is the price and the promise of citizenship.

This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.

This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.

So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:

"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."

America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations."

Et tu, Ignatieff?

It’s the fashion these days for directors to set a new production of Shakespeare in an alternate historical timeline. I’m sure I’m not the only one who is a little tired of these productions, especially as each new interpretation seems to be more and more of a stretch. So please don’t read the rest of this post as a ringing endorsement of the style (…er, fad).

However, for argument’s sake… and because my little art blog seems to be all wrapped up in politics right now, anyway… if you were to apply Shakespeare’s political tragedy to our own Canadian one, who would you cast in the titular role: Stephen Harper or Stephane Dion?

The answer, of course, depends on your point of view – pro-coalition or not. I imagine if you are a Conservative supporter, then your pick would be Harper. The idea of the greatest leader of the Roman Empire assassinated by his own government via multiple stab wounds to the back is probably more than fitting to your view of Canada’s current political crisis. This would probably also serve to keep your blood boiling hot.

However, considering the Conservative party’s current stance on culture, I’m tempted to assume that an ardent Harper supporter has neither read nor seen Julius Caesar. As such, s/he wouldn’t know how minor a role Caesar actually has in the play. (I do: I’ve played him.)

Stephane Dion is a more apt choice – especially if you replace the Roman Empire with the Liberal Party of Canada. (Considering how many years the Liberals have governed the country since confederation, this is actually not that much of a stretch.)

The real question then becomes how to cast the true main characters in the piece: Brutus and Marc Antony? Does Michael Ignatieff become Brutus – the man who ended up leading the assassination plot (albeit reluctantly) for the good of the Empire, and takes power? And does Bob Rae become Antony – the well spoken orator who rallies against Brutus, and ends up defeating him by setting up a triumvirate government with Octavius and Lepidus (read coalition government with Layton and Duceppe).

Hm. This is kinda fun. I can see why directors can be lured to this approach… However, my focus is not in producing Shakespeare, so I won’t be looking to produce this any time soon. Feel free to use, if you like.

I’d buy a ticket.

Diabolical

Harper's cuts to the arts earlier this year showed more than a callous attitude towards Canadian culture... it revealed how he intends to govern, period.

What's happening on Parliament Hill right now is almost unheard of. And it hinges on a relatively small cut that will have a huge impact on a target group that is politically unfriendly to Harper's Conservatives.

Sound familiar?

Like the cuts to culture funding only a few months ago, the Conservatives' plan to eliminate public subsidies to political parties does nothing to solve the current economic crisis. It does, however, solidify their core support (presumably to distract from upcoming and unavoidable deficit spending the government will be forced to engage in) and it will also nearly destroy the opposition's ability to compete in the next federal election (which will probably be coming up in a matter of months, or even weeks, based on these moves.)

Like the culture cuts, the $30 million the government will save is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the $3 - $10 billion that economic forecasters are saying next year's deficit may amount to. However, just as the culture cuts disproportionately damaged the long-term viability of the exports component of our industry, cutting subsidies to political parties will also disproportionately hurt the opposition parties' finances and viability to construct a future election campaign (at least in the short term... when it will matter most).

During the election, I wrote that the culture funding cuts could be used as a political tool for progressive voters to describe a pattern of ideological governance by the Conservatives. However, I thought that Harper's capacity to do so would be contained by the context of a minority government and a worldwide economic crisis. Who knew that his ambitions would be so naked or bold.

As the Globe's Jefferey Simpson wrote

Thursday's economic statement was an economic lame duck and a political boner. It revealed, among other things, the kind of Conservative Party that all but its core supporters suspected would eventually be outed: a group of ideologues, led by a Prime Minister who discarded his campaign sweater to reveal an economist with a tin heart and a politician who looks everywhere for political advantage.

Instead of trying to grow Conservative support, he appealed only to his party's core. Instead of acting in a statesmanlike fashion at a time of crisis, he opted to play politics, proposing to cancel public subsidies for parties, a move that would disproportionately benefit his.

The Conservatives have altered the parliamentary schedule so that a vote of non-confidence won't happen until at least December 8. The G&M is reporting that the Conservatives are going to embark on a massive public relations blitz to build public opinion against a possible Liberal-NDP coalition government, relying on (ick) Bloc support.

As much as I am skeptical that this coalition would work for any extended amount of time, at this point I'm positive that anything would be better than this current bunch of goons that running the show.

What can we do about it?

Remember that the optics on this one are not so good for the progressive parties, and that's why the Conservatives tried to pull this fast one in the first place. Their plan is too shout as loud as they can to anyone that will listen that:
1) The opposition is trying to force an election because they are not willing to give up taxpayer-funded subsidies; and
2) The Conservatives won the election fair-and-square, and the opposition was not given a mandate to govern.

Please, shout back:
1) In a minority government situation, it was the Government's responsibility to maintain the confidence of the House, and the Conservatives failed miserably only six weeks after the election;
2) The Conservatives tried to use the most serious financial climate in seven decades in which thousands of Canadians have lost their livelihoods for their own political gain;
3) It's actually the Conservatives that want another $300 million dollar election, the opposition is actually taking extraordinary steps to avoid one by setting up a coalition government; and
3) The Conservatives were not given a mandate to govern either -- they lost 62% of the popular vote.

Remember: if this wasn't a blatantly political move, then why didn't the Conservatives also impose election advertising spending limits along with cuts to funding? Or alleviate individual donation caps?

The Department of Culture also has more tips about how to get involved and avoid being railroaded by this weekend's upcoming publicity blitz.

Seriously. What a friggin mess.

Humble Pie

Well, I guess I can admit when I'm wrong.

The furor over arts cuts didn't give Mr. Harper a majority, it actually was one of the only things that prevented it.

The arts cuts equalled a resurgence of Bloc support in Quebec, which in turn prevented Harper of making his "breakthrough" in La Belle Province. In English Canada however, it was another story...

I'm not sure how I should feel about all this, and I imagine that a lot of other artists are similarly confused. After all, Harper still won, so I imagine the cuts will remain. And from what I hear, he's a pretty vindictive politician: if artists prevented his coveted majority, than I wonder (and fear) if artists will be subject to his subsequent wrath.

And I'm not sure how good anyone feels about the arts funding issue directly benefitting a party committed to breaking up the nation...

Are we to blame for this too?

We're All Fools

Harper might win a majority by cutting arts funding... and we artists are helping him do it.

Don't ask me how I feel about Harper's cuts and his outrageous comments. I'm as hurt and and angry as the rest of you, but there are more important issues here than my feelings. Or yours.

As a political maneuver, this was brilliant. (er... diabolical?)

Harper had to deal with a couple of small problems: he was being attacked by all the party leaders on a number of issues and he needed to consolidate his base support while, at the same time, attract swing voters at the centre of the political spectrum.

Regionally, he was working long before the writ was dropped with massive pre-election spending in order to warm up the electorate. Conservatism at its most basic level (I thought) is against taxpayer's money being spent like this, especially on frivolities like a UFO sighting commemoration.

As the economy gets worse and worse during this campaign, he looks like he's doing his due duty in managing the economy by cutting "frivolous" arts funding. He tells artists that we have to "stick to a budget."

Now these cuts were made a while ago, but they didn't receive a lot of press. But we as artists must challenge them. Because we're constantly under attack. And the arts need to be defended. And so Quebec artists, bless them, use the Gemeaux awards to shame Harper and the ideology behind these cuts. But unfortunately, outside of Quebec, this plays right into Harper's hands.

He calls us "fat cats" and says we live in an "ivory tower." He says that the furor over these cuts won't resonate with "ordinary Canadians," i.e. regular folk that work hard for their money, not like them bum artists living on the taxpayer's dime, the worst kind of corporate welfare. (Ick.)

All of a sudden the arts (for the first time that I can remember) have become a major election story. Let me tell you why, in my opinion, this is not a good thing for artists.

What has been accomplished here? Let's take a look:
1) Harper has consolidated his core support. Even those who may have felt alienated by his concession on Afghanistan, can rally around on Harper on this issue. These cuts are ideological in nature and appeal to many of the same voters who support life sentences for children.
2) Harper hasn't lost any support from the centre spectrum voters; in fact, he may have gained some traction. Think about it: we're an electorate that is having trouble understanding the Green Shift. Trying to explain how cuts to programs that send artists overseas are a bad thing... is damn hard. Unfortunately, Harper's comments about artists being "whiners" is ringing true (at least in English Canada).
3) The left still remains split. While artists have succeeded making a lot of noise about the value of art, we've only been denouncing Harper and we haven't thrown our combined weight behind a different candidate that will champion the arts. And we, just like the rest of Canada, remain divided into camps of ideological or strategic voters.
4) The other major parties have jumped on the band wagon. As passionate as I am about the arts, the pragmatist in me knows that it won't win an election. So while this is a major election story, it's not an election issue. But all the other party leaders think they smell blood in the water, and at this point, are desperate for any conservative weakness that might have some traction. This is not it.

The two major election questions are the economy and Harper. He has made the election about these issues, and the more the other leaders are sidetracked away from them, the more this plays in his favour. Especially if they continue to be unified in their pro-arts, anti-Harper response... if there's no distinction, then there's no mending of the left-of-centre split.

Now I realize that Harper needs Quebec to form a majority, and yes, cutting Quebec arts funding IS actually a major election issue... in Quebec. But in BC and especially in Ontario, it's the economy stupid.

So what do we do about it?

1) Keep making noise... but be strategic. This election is about Harper. He's coming to us in a fuzzy sweater and trying to woo the centre by claiming he makes common sense decisions for the good of Canada. But THIS decision is steeped in ideology. Same as his crime bill. This is a pattern: what journalists like to call a narrative. (He's also being mean about it - another narrative). This is the narrative that we must promote: if he follows far-right ideology on the arts and crime, then what does this mean for health care? Education? WHAT WOULD HARPER DO WITH A MAJORITY??? (You get the idea.)
2) We have to back one of the other parties. Any one. But we have to consolidate our vote. This is a tremendous opportunity: the other leaders are listening. What can/will they do to consolidate our vote?

E-mail this post to every artist you know. There's still time...

~talbot