Thanks for this interesting essay. It inspired me. I plan to look up some of those authors as well. You're going to make us all want to move to Montana... if you're not careful. 😎lol
Re: DOGE
I applaud you for being brave enough to mention such a controversial "organization ". I think we all ( regardless of party) would like to do some fiscal trimming wherever it's required. My complaint is HOW we do something is just as important as WHY we do something. Our current administration fails to approach anything in a thoughtful, systematic manner-- including funding for the humanities. The wrecking ball approach is a lose-lose.
We’re viewing this elephant from different angles, but I think we may be closer than it first appears. Public funding of the humanities (per your definition) recalls the NPR idea which, after a noble start, has become quite partisan… I think we’ve done better with the National parks.
I enjoy and appreciate your thoughtful treatment of nature through these stories. Although our world-views seem to diverge politically, it is always refreshing to read honest prose without (usually) guile. Regarding DOGE, I think we are asking the wrong questions. It is not that many of these endeavors that have their funding cut are not worthwhile...many are. The question is WHO should fund them. Fiscal restraint on the part of the Federal Budget should be applauded, not denigrated (no matter how clumsy the process may appear). Thanks!
I have a different perspective. DOGE is just another trump/Musk scam. If you’re concerned about government fraud, waste and inefficiency you don’t fire multiple inspectors general, whose job it is to seek out fraud, waste, and inefficiency. And you also don’t lie about the dollar amount of fraud, waste and inefficiency you’ve found, which trump and Musk did. It’s odd that no one was charged with fraud despite the large amount of fraud trump and Musk claimed they found. It’s telling that Musk has faded from the picture. That’s because what he really wanted to do was mine our government for private data, which he has now done, to be used to increase his wealth in a variety of ways. If you want to look at fraud, you look at DOGE. And if you’re concerned about waste and inefficiency, you don’t fire thousands of highly trained and knowledgeable federal employees, and either don’t rehire them, negatively affecting the vital government services they performed, or you have to re-hire them, which is obviously very inefficient.
Hardly a rant. Just the reality. It’s important that we don’t normalize actions and behaviors that are highly abnormal and extreme. Mr. Clayton encourages fact-based and civil discussion, I would think.
Jon, I think your hesitation was wise. I'm all for disqualifying vitriol, but that needed to start with Mr. Trump. Once the barn door is open... I believe (without much evidence) that David is wrong about DOGE being a scam, but I do find his argument a legitimate response to my faint hope that DOGE may yet achieve fiscal restraint.
So David, I understand where you're coming from. But I will say that in this essay, I was trying to go somewhere different. It's easy to criticize our opponents' faults; it's harder to positively articulate why a position or initiative embodies our values. Have the humanities impacted me, or my community, in ways that justify public funding? Jon and I apparently disagree about the answer to that question, but our process of phrasing it in increasingly productive, healthy ways feels a bit derailed by your critiques. In that sense I understand why he called it a rant.
I debated even including the word DOGE in the essay's Afterword, knowing the emotions it stirs. In me too! Thanks to you both for helping me work through them.
What I really want to encourage is for this space to be friendly and informal enough that people call me John or Clates or JC. "Mr. Clayton" makes me look around for my father! :)
Thanks for speaking up! I agree with you about the question. In truth, I have witnessed some humanities endeavors that were not worthwhile. But I believe a humanities infrastructure is -- like parks and nature preserves -- a public good. For our democracy to work well, we need platforms for constructive nonpartisan discussion. A humanities infrastructure that can help us shape our collective view of the past and future is worth paying for collectively. It needs to be done efficiently, and well, and maybe with more public/private partnerships... but if we throw up our hands and say "Let the universities do it" or "Let the Ford Foundation do it," I don't see how the discussion would ever be perceived as nonpartisan. And thus today's problems would only get worse.
I still hope to be able to applaud DOGE when it takes on processes (as Jennifer Pahlka describes here: https://www.eatingpolicy.com/p/thoughts-for-inauguration-day). The NEH cuts struck me as brutal and thoughtless in part because it feels like the moment of a great opportunity to achieve fiscal efficiency is being wasted on stuff that Musk just hopes will enrage the libs.
Thanks for this interesting essay. It inspired me. I plan to look up some of those authors as well. You're going to make us all want to move to Montana... if you're not careful. 😎lol
Re: DOGE
I applaud you for being brave enough to mention such a controversial "organization ". I think we all ( regardless of party) would like to do some fiscal trimming wherever it's required. My complaint is HOW we do something is just as important as WHY we do something. Our current administration fails to approach anything in a thoughtful, systematic manner-- including funding for the humanities. The wrecking ball approach is a lose-lose.
We’re viewing this elephant from different angles, but I think we may be closer than it first appears. Public funding of the humanities (per your definition) recalls the NPR idea which, after a noble start, has become quite partisan… I think we’ve done better with the National parks.
I enjoy and appreciate your thoughtful treatment of nature through these stories. Although our world-views seem to diverge politically, it is always refreshing to read honest prose without (usually) guile. Regarding DOGE, I think we are asking the wrong questions. It is not that many of these endeavors that have their funding cut are not worthwhile...many are. The question is WHO should fund them. Fiscal restraint on the part of the Federal Budget should be applauded, not denigrated (no matter how clumsy the process may appear). Thanks!
I have a different perspective. DOGE is just another trump/Musk scam. If you’re concerned about government fraud, waste and inefficiency you don’t fire multiple inspectors general, whose job it is to seek out fraud, waste, and inefficiency. And you also don’t lie about the dollar amount of fraud, waste and inefficiency you’ve found, which trump and Musk did. It’s odd that no one was charged with fraud despite the large amount of fraud trump and Musk claimed they found. It’s telling that Musk has faded from the picture. That’s because what he really wanted to do was mine our government for private data, which he has now done, to be used to increase his wealth in a variety of ways. If you want to look at fraud, you look at DOGE. And if you’re concerned about waste and inefficiency, you don’t fire thousands of highly trained and knowledgeable federal employees, and either don’t rehire them, negatively affecting the vital government services they performed, or you have to re-hire them, which is obviously very inefficient.
I hesitate to respond to a rant, and doubt this kind of vitriol is the sort Mr. Clayton encourages.
Hardly a rant. Just the reality. It’s important that we don’t normalize actions and behaviors that are highly abnormal and extreme. Mr. Clayton encourages fact-based and civil discussion, I would think.
Jon, I think your hesitation was wise. I'm all for disqualifying vitriol, but that needed to start with Mr. Trump. Once the barn door is open... I believe (without much evidence) that David is wrong about DOGE being a scam, but I do find his argument a legitimate response to my faint hope that DOGE may yet achieve fiscal restraint.
So David, I understand where you're coming from. But I will say that in this essay, I was trying to go somewhere different. It's easy to criticize our opponents' faults; it's harder to positively articulate why a position or initiative embodies our values. Have the humanities impacted me, or my community, in ways that justify public funding? Jon and I apparently disagree about the answer to that question, but our process of phrasing it in increasingly productive, healthy ways feels a bit derailed by your critiques. In that sense I understand why he called it a rant.
I debated even including the word DOGE in the essay's Afterword, knowing the emotions it stirs. In me too! Thanks to you both for helping me work through them.
What I really want to encourage is for this space to be friendly and informal enough that people call me John or Clates or JC. "Mr. Clayton" makes me look around for my father! :)
Thanks for speaking up! I agree with you about the question. In truth, I have witnessed some humanities endeavors that were not worthwhile. But I believe a humanities infrastructure is -- like parks and nature preserves -- a public good. For our democracy to work well, we need platforms for constructive nonpartisan discussion. A humanities infrastructure that can help us shape our collective view of the past and future is worth paying for collectively. It needs to be done efficiently, and well, and maybe with more public/private partnerships... but if we throw up our hands and say "Let the universities do it" or "Let the Ford Foundation do it," I don't see how the discussion would ever be perceived as nonpartisan. And thus today's problems would only get worse.
I still hope to be able to applaud DOGE when it takes on processes (as Jennifer Pahlka describes here: https://www.eatingpolicy.com/p/thoughts-for-inauguration-day). The NEH cuts struck me as brutal and thoughtless in part because it feels like the moment of a great opportunity to achieve fiscal efficiency is being wasted on stuff that Musk just hopes will enrage the libs.
Thank you for your words today, John.
And your bullet points!
Thank you for reading!