No. 3
Autumn 1999
|
LPQC News | Vol. 5 No. 3 Autumn 1999 |
In This Issue:
Editorial: Freedom of Coercive Expression-The Sensationalist Racket
A Rose By Any Other Name Is Not A Standard
From the Chair: Politics, Margarine, and Marketing
As you no doubt might have heard by now, there is once more another "profoundly controversial" exhibit playing at the Brooklyn Museum. Entitled "Sensation," the two-year old British show has provoked a storm due to the featured painting "Holy Virgin Mary" by Chris Ofili (depicting the Madonna in a canvas rich with elephant feces), among other "specimens."
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, apparently stricken with a sudden, campaign-season outbreak of politically expedient moral outrage, has decried such examples as insulting to the Church, and abusive of taxpayer dollars. He attempted to defund the museum unless it shut down the show, and was joined in his criticism of the show by such figures as Cardinal O'Connor and the Catholic League. Meanwhile, the museum's self-righteous poseur-defenders of dung-as- art, and sundry profiteers of Shock raked in $9.75 per head from over 9,200 attendees once it opened October 2.
From our vantage point, this spectacle centers neither on the capricious "censorship" by an opportunistic, vote-hungry Mayor, nor coercive sponsorship by certain Christ-baiting, self-serving guardians of 'Beauty'(?). What it crudely comes down to is hype, hypocrisy and power, practiced by pugnacious warriors on both right and left ends of the culture war. Libertarians have often complained about the pro-government duopoly called the two party system, that pretends to be in opposition with each other, even as they advance the Total State in stereo. What we haven't pointed out as often is that a similar mock battle occurs on the so-called "cultural" front, where arrogant liberal and moralistic conservative puppets slap each other over who will control the stage, or the "naked public square"-even while the puppetmasters take the rights away from the audience as the show goes on. In the case of "Sensation," both combatants manage to jointly strangle liberty while pretending to be leading the charge for it.
To set the record straight, libertarians favor voluntary exchanges of ideas and goods, where both the expression of thought (including artistic speech) and its delivery to market are performed and received without compulsion. In a truly free or open society, provocative expression is neither regimentally categorized (through demonization or censorship), nor is it criminally subsidized (through force of law, or extorted taxes)-whether or not it shocks or elevates.
The flap over this show is part of an endless power game over whether the cultural right or left will dominate or be ascendant. When one side accuses the other of censorship, it usually means that group doesn't want the other censoring them. As often pointed out, a show in Brooklyn that adorned a black leader or Jewish figure in feces would be shut down immediately, with no cries of "censorship." That's because the cultural left is dominant in New York, and supports censorship of "hate speech" (restricting extreme right speech), but not extreme left speech (Christ-bashing). Depending on the area of the country, either the left or right is in control, expanding the state via censorship (euphemized as something else), or through coercive funding. Neither side seems to mind the existence of censorship so long as they are able to practice it, and use government force to bolster their power.
So a pox on both statist sides of this racket, beginning with the Mayor, who situationally poses as an opponent of taxpayer-supported Christ-bashing art-yet allowed school bus trips to the Whitney Museum, when Serrano's "Piss Christ" (the infamous crucifix in the jar of urine) was being displayed. Where was his outrage then-inert during a non-election period? Conservatives have more consistently used these controversies to oppose all arts funding, yet have fallen into the groove of only rising in discontent when blatantly graphic assaults on their values occur. One suspects if the exhibit was produced by conservatives or clergy, and promoted the Church, with Sen. Jesse Helms selecting the pieces, they would have no problem with the forced sponsorship of their art (on outraged liberal taxpayers). When will they oppose coercive funding in all cases on principle?
Smug museum operators have no right to incoherently decree that everyone accept their value judgments (this is "art") as settled fact, while contentiously challenging value judgment-claims of others (this is "offensive"). Nor do they have credibility when simultaneously requesting public funds on a "hardship" basis (the ancient chant of "this Art wouldn't get support from the private sector"), while reaping a commercial harvest from hawking the exhibit along precisely the same commercial lines that would have made the show marketable if privately funded.
Finally, the two-faced politicians feigning both the pseudo-libertarian "free expression" (for me, but not you) line, and the "but, I'm personally offended by the dung painting, I feel your pain" should be sent packing. Are we expected to vote for people who take our money to finance crime, because inside they feel the same as we do? If you were mugged, but found out the thief used the money to finance "Holy Virgin Mary," would you feel less mugged?
Standard: An acknowledged measure of comparison for quantitative or qualitative value; a criterion. A degree or level of requirement, excellence, or attainment.
Richard P. Mills, New York State Commissioner of Education, has proposed that those seeking a Regents diploma may take certain examinations in their first language.
The dictionary definition of the word "standard" causes a logical thinker to conclude that this proposal is a clear violation of the term. If a standard were to require, as the present one does, that a student demonstrate competence in a particular subject-be it American History, English, Math, Spanish or French, for example-to deviate from that standard and allow for certain favored groups to do so in their first language nullifies the standard. Apart from the issue of "fairness" by selecting only four foreign languages and leaving out: Italian, French, German, Korean, Japanese, etc.-the standard will no longer exist if Commissioner Mills has his way. The end result is to void the standard. There will be no standard, not the "Doublespeak" higher standard Mills expects us to believe his plan will assure.
Will American-born English speaking students be allowed to take their foreign language exams in English? Logic would demand this practice, if foreign born can do on a test designed to determine competence in a field where English is the language in which they must be capable of communicating, as it is here in the United States.
This is not discriminatory. This is common sense, which I gather, is not very common in Albany. Do the Japanese, French or Italians test mastery in English in Japanese, French or Italian? Certainly not. They recognize the duplicity in such an addle-brained approach to standards.
For decades the earning of a state Regents Diploma has signified a degree of competence on the part of its holder. High school graduates from New York would be known to all as having met the rigorous Regents standard attached. If Mills has his way, there will be no way to determine if an applicant for a job or entrance into a college or university is able to compete. "feel-good" diplomas do not proclaim one has the requisite knowledge of skills in a given area or in general. The number of Advanced Placement credits a graduate has amassed will be the only determining factor; and this will place at extreme disadvantage those bright, capable students from small, poor or rural districts which do not offer the array of AP courses the wealthier ones can afford. Fair?
In the application of "fairness" when will the gifted, the bright, the above average be considered? The state will benefit when each individual becomes educated to his/her ability level. We all lose when words such as excellence, competition, achievement are excoriated and substituted with the politically-correct ones like fairness, equity or whichever psycho-babble term is popular at the moment. Mill's proposal is another lock-step in the march toward dumbing us down, so prevalent in government schools today.
(Previously published in Suffolk-Life Newspapers under a pseudonym. Ms. Cappozzi is currently running for Town Supervisor in Suffolk county. Those wishing to contact or contribute to her campaign may write to: Audrey Capozzi, P.O. Box 613, Bellport, NY 11713, or email audgeo @aol.com. -Ed.)
Our September meeting was perhaps the most informative public discussion of the proposed revisions to the New York City Charter to be held anywhere this year. In August I attended one of the public hearings put on by the Charter Revision Commission-it was little more than a shouting match among various factions, with almost no exposition of the substance of the proposals.
In contrast, at our meeting, Siegie Kress presented summaries of the proposed changes in light of the existing Charter, whose 76 chapters establish seemingly endless departments of City government. Intermixed with Siegie's presentation was rational discussion of the significance-or lack thereof-of the proposed revisions.
But turnout for the meeting was light, in spite of the most extensive publicity we've ever put out for a regular meeting. Even the prominent billing we received in the Neighborhood News section of the Daily News attracted not a single visitor.
Some years ago, while writing and editing marketing materials for friends who were promoting a new musical group, it occurred to me that the challenges before us were much like those a company faces when launching a new product-say, a new brand of margarine. The public already knows its preferences in margarine, and considerable effort is required not only to penetrate the public's awareness with the fact that a new brand is available, but also to persuade individuals that it might be worth checking out.
We face exactly the same challenges. When marketing any new product, some basics must be attended to.
First, one has to have a product. What is ours? Generalities about government policy, from people who can't or won't run for office? In the political marketplace, that won't cut it. The winners in politics are the ones who talk about what they're going to do and how they're going to do it. They usually have experience in public office, or at least in civic organizations. They understand their opposition and work tirelessly at countering their arguments and winning away their supporters.
Besides having a product-candidates who can discuss their
proposals in specific terms-we need to penetrate the public's consciousness; we have to build name recognition. When big
companies launch new products, they support their campaigns with
tremendous resources, both in advertising dollars and marketing
expertise. We have neither of those on the scale that large
companies do, but we have both on a smaller scale, and we can
accomplish much with what we have.
Two great suggestions that address these challenges
emerged at the close of our meeting. In tying up her
presentation on the proposed Charter revisions, Siegie asked us
to come up with our own proposals for a libertarian City
Charter. Her suggestion is well worth acting on; it would move
us from libertarian vagueness to a more concrete picture of how
a libertarian New York City would work.
To Siegie's suggestion I would add that if each of us takes some time to learn more about our City government and alternatives to it, we can build our credibility with potential candidates and the public alike. Take, for example, the New York City Sports Commission. What is its budget? What would happen if it were eliminated? How would that lead to a better New York City? Reasoned answers to questions like these could tell potential candidates that we can support them, at least in helping them frame their message in specific, persuasive terms.
Also, as we were putting away the fliers, magazines, and
bumper stickers on our literature table-in order to lug them
home and then back to our next meeting-Gene Stewart suggested
that we distribute them wherever we can. We're all familiar with
window shelves in supermarkets and other retail outlets that are
usually filled with local weeklies. We can, with the owners'
permission, place our literature there; even if people only
glance at it, they might be seeing the name "Libertarian Party"
for the first time in their lives. Bob Knipe and I have done
some of this already, and the literature gets picked up-and
possibly even read. We can also distribute literature by handing
it out at busy places like post offices on weekends. I
discovered earlier this year that it's easy to hand out 50
fliers in less than a half hour.
We may not have the resources it takes to bring a new brand of margarine to market, but we do have resources. Let's use them to move to the next stage of our political maturity and influence.
Editor's Note: Once more, if you have the time, editing and writing abilities (and a PC), we are interested in your input in helping LPQC News in publishing it. Please contact us at (718) 670-3270, fax (718) 639-3294, email us at LPQC@aol.com newsletter@LPQC.org, or come to our upcoming meetings to tell us what you can do. Deadline for the next issue of LPQC News is: November 15.
Upcoming Events | Newsletter Archive | Bylaws | Membership Application | Webmail | Home
For comments and suggestions, click here
URL: http://www.lpqc.org/Newsletter/V5N3.shtml
Last Modified: Monday January 05 2004.
Copyright © 1995-2004 Libertarian Party of Queens County
Site provisioning by The Web Warren.
