This report was made possible by a grant from the Nathan Cummings Foundation
The struggle has its roots in both politics and aesthetics- meaning the definitions of behavior and imagery that are considered publicly acceptable and worthy of government encouragement-giving rise to what is now commonly referred to as the "culture war." It is fueled at the national level by organizations of politically-motivated religious activists, utilizing the depiction of blasphemy, sex, and violence in the arts as a powerful and lucrative stimulus for recruitment and funds; and at the grass-roots, by a network of religiously-motivated activists generally politicized by the abortion debate and now drawn into activist politics by their visceral reactions to government funding of art they find offensive, and thus unacceptable as a recipient of tax dollars. The religious basis to these objections rooted in concern over the effects of sexual and violent imagery in the media and the arts on the nation's children has become a primary organizing principle. Many new converts are drawn to the moral vision offered as a solution to society's ills.
The recruitment ground for such religiously-based political activism is quite fertile, as demonstrated by a dramatic shift over the past thirty years in Americans' religious loyalties. Mainstream (non-explicitly political) Protestant denominations (Episcopal, Presbyterian, etc.) have lost an estimated 25% of their membership over the last 25 years; from an estimated 30-40% of the U.S. population in 1960, their membership has plunged to below 20% today, according to surveys conducted by Lyman Kellstedt, a professor of Political Science at Wheaton College. During the same period, according to Kellstedt, the membership in evangelical churches, those most likely to drive the debate over cultural values in the public arena, has remained steady at an estimated 26% of the population; given the over 40% rise in the U.S. population, this proportionate holding pattern represents a dramatic rise in sheer numbers of those involved in the evangelical movement. Evangelicals are also by far the most active and avid churchgoers of all denominations, according to Kellstedt's research. These numbers illustrate the rich vein of church-affiliated potential activists who have helped propel the debate over public support for the arts into an unprecedentedly high profile. (Evangelicals, the heart of the loose amalgam of religiously motivated political groups that have come to be known as the 'Religious Right', include an array of denominations, including Baptists, Free Methodists, Pentecostals, Evangelical Presbyterians, Adventists and non-church based Protestants who often worship through televangelists and are the fastest growing sector of the Evangelical movement).
When art is used as a wedge issue in this political struggle, the aesthetic conflict becomes clear in a deeply felt disagreement over the very purpose of art. As James Davison Hunter, Professor of Sociology and Religious Studies at the University of Virginia, observes in his book, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America , "For the orthodox and their conservative allies, artistic creativity is concerned to reflect a higher reality. For their opponents, art is concerned with the creation of reality itself." For the latter, the search for truth is an ever-unfolding process by each individual; for the former, the truths, already found, reside in the religious doctrine of Jesus Christ. The idea that the individual creates himself whether through art or countless other forms of self-expression is at the philosophical core of the dispute over what constitutes an 'acceptable' form of expression, for those who care to distinguish in the first place.
One encounters this conflicting vision of the individual's relationship to art and society most directly in the objections by groups like Citizens for Excellence in Education to new textbooks, such as Pumsy: In Pursuit of Excellence; Developing Understanding of the Self and Others . These objections revolve around the book's emphasis upon a child's individual self-definition, and not finding that definition within a Christian context or, as the social scientist James Wilson is quoted by Heritage Foundation Fellow William Bennett, the embracing of "an ethos that values self-expression over self- control." Such attacks reveal the polar opposite perspectives on either side of the cultural divide and the aesthetic and philosophical base at the root of their use as organizing tools.
This struggle over defining America's cultural values has begun to manifest itself in every sector of American public life, from school curricula to national arts policy. William Bennett, the former National Drug Control Policy Director, now a Fellow for Cultural Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, has launched a campaign to focus specifically on the "cultural indicators" of America's decline. In doing so, he makes the cultural component to the political battle explicit: 'culture' and 'values', in all of their various artistic and lifestyle connotations, are ascribed a high degree of responsibility for a litany of America's social problems crime, the decline of 'family values', declining educational standards, etc. though it could be persuasively argued that cultural expressions are as much a symptom as a cause of such problems. Of course, Bennett's rise-to-arms over our cultural decline is often a code word for objecting to behavior that veers from the norm, homosexuality being the most popular example.
While the "culture war" has its strong Washington component focused around attacks on the NEA, gay rights and other 'family values' standard bearers it is fed by well-organized grass-roots campaigns. An illustrative example of how local battles can rapidly become national in scope occurred at a community meeting in Colorado Springs sponsored by Colorado for Family Values, the primary sponsor of Amendment 2, which prohibits municipalities or the state from protecting homosexuals from discrimination. At the meeting last winter, fifty or so 'concerned local citizens' listened as Amber Jorgensen, the Chairwoman of CFV, brandished a copy of the book, Children of the Rainbow, and admonished her listeners to "keep an eye out for this book!" Denouncing its "promotion of the gay lifestyle," she asked the attendees to write letters to state and national representatives protesting its inclusion in school curricula. As a model for action, she cited the current controversy over the book in New York. Multiplied by dozens of such meetings around the country, this particular gathering demonstrated how the emotionally-charged issue of what different viewpoints children should be exposed to is emerging as a rallying cry for those who would limit the range of expression in other areas as well.
Indeed, the New York City School Board elections in May 1993 provided a stark example of how such local battles can, with a high degree of organization, quickly become national loci for action: here in New York, the Christian Coalition and the Traditional Values Coalition were highly active in organizing coalitions of religious activists, Hispanic, Black and Jewish religious communities to support Christian candidates for school boards. Though the election itself was not considered a resounding success for the religious movement, they succeeded in several already conservative districts, but were blocked from citywide victory; such an operation is illustrative of how concerted effort by a number of groups can ride such hot-button issues as sex education, condom distribution and 'multicultural' curriculum issues to the polls. More recently, the Christian Coalition provided logistical and material support to former civil rights activist Roy Innis, who attempted to drive the cultural agenda of the Religious Right into the New York mayoral race. Clearly, such a campaign can be galvanized quickly, on the ground or in the mails, utilizing the high-voltage imagery associated with sexuality and human body as rallying points for debate over cultural values.
William Bennett and his presumed rival for the 1996 Republican presidential nomination Pat Buchanan are attempting to do just that, hitching their political aspirations to an assault on cultural values, competing in their different styles over the same terrain. While Bennett utilizes statistical analyses purporting to correlate social problems to declining commitment to traditional American values, Pat Buchanan's new group, The American Cause funded through a direct mail drive to funders of his 1992 presidential campaign launches a direct assault on the cultural industries themselves. He advocates a sort of right-wing version of feminist 'take-back-the-night' strategy, demanding that conservatives reclaim the channels of communication from the 'liberal establishment'. At a two-day, "Winning the Culture War" conference held in Washington in May 1993, Buchanan equated the ongoing "Culture War" to the Cold War as a long haul struggle that demands vigilance and relentless counter assaults against those deemed harmful to American interests. Buchanan calls for conservatives to challenge the 'cultural elite' where it counts: in the fields of writing and arts, attempting to redefine the content of the cultural industries with an "alternative culture." Speakers at the conference demanded that conservatives start writing and producing television shows, newspapers and artwork to "take back America." James Cooper, editor of American Arts Quarterly, demanded consumer boycotts of corporations that support such artists as Annie Sprinkle and exhibitions of the shows of the late Mapplethorpe. Buchanan, who will be taking his campaign on the road, is clearly attempting to re-ignite his political career by putting art and culture at the frontline of an expected bid for the presidency in 1996.
The Council for National Policy, founded in 1984 by Timothy LaHaye (known for denouncing nude figures in Renaissance art as "the forerunner of the modern humanist's demand for pornography") and billionaire Nelson Bunker Hunt, has evolved into a forum for bringing wealthy funders together with conservative activists to discuss projects of mutual interest. Highly secretive, it considers itself a conservative alternative to the establishment Council on Foreign Relations. Major funding comes from Nelson Bunker Hunt and members of the Coors family; membership costs $2,000, and a position on the group's Board of Governors can be purchased with a $5,000 donation. These board members then elect an Executive Committee, which has included leading lights of the secular and religious right The Reverends Pat Robertson and Donald Wildmon have served along with secular conservative leaders such as Oliver North, Joseph Coors, Paul Weyrich, Richard DeVos, Richard Viguerie, and Phyllis Schlafly. The Council's aim is to coordinate the activities of the various groups represented by their membership.
The Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, founded by new-right impresario Paul Weyrich as a "public charity," is a far more active lobbying force than the CNP, bringing its considerable resources to bear on issues from abortion to gay rights in Congress. According to the Institute for First Amendment Studies, its estimated $6 to $7 million annual budget comes from such stalwarts of right-wing funding as members of the Coors family; the De Moss foundation; Michael and Helen Valerio of Papa Gino's Italian restaurants; California millionaire Howard Ahmanson and his Fieldstead Foundation; and the DeVos Foundation, funded by Richard and Helen DeVos of the Amway Corporation. The Bradley Foundation has also been a major funder. The Foundation's most advanced work to date has been in the area of high-technology communications to unite the varying branches of the secular and religious right.
Free Congress is now the key force behind one of the most significant developments in the use of high technology for spreading the conservative ideology and tactical political advice on questions of culture, as well as economics: the budding new television system, National Empowerment Television. NET provides an interactive satellite television service for its participating organizationsƒwhich include Eagle Forum, Concerned Women for America, the Christian Coalition and Family Research Council (all described later in this report), as well as the National Right to Life Committee and National Association of Evangelicals (the coordinating body for evangelical churches). The service is accessible to participating groups for whom it serves as a sort of cross-fertilization service, a means to share information and mobilize members around issues from the confirmation battle over Lani Guinier to opposition to the refunding of the National Endowment for the Arts. Through its leadership, NET provides a critical bridge between the secular and religious right. Paul Weyrich, the President of NET, also serves on the faculty of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition Leadership Schools, which organize workshops on the nuts and bolts of political activism across the country; William Bennett is Chairman; and Ralph Reed, Executive Director of the Christian Coalition, is a Director. The Christian Coalition has used the NET system for nationwide teleconferenced meetings between its national headquarters in Virginia and state and local affiliates. In addition to providing teleconference services, NET produces four television shows of its own beamed to members: on economic, cultural, black and student issues. The potential of the system to galvanize public opinion around specific issues has already been demonstrated: former President Bush reportedly fired his head of the National Endowment for the Arts John Frohnmayer after an NET call for action resulted in a flood of irate mail and phone calls objecting to the NEA's funding of "obscene art."
In December, 1993, NET was dramatically expanded into a full-blown twenty-four hour television service, distributed by satellite and cable, that offers weekly programs reflecting the religious and secular right's agenda on political, economic, cultural and social issues. The service, produced in Washington, DC, features some of the 'stars' of the right, such as Rep. Newt Gingrich doing a show on national politics, "The Progress Report;" Burton Pines, formerly with the Heritage Foundation, hosting "Capitol Watch;" a phone-in show with Free Congress Foundation head Paul Weyrich; and "Youngblood," a show aimed at young people to "challenge the cynicism of MTV." Other programs, according to the NET Program guide, focus specifically on the cultural agenda: "Entertaining Right" will critique all forms of popular entertainmentƒincluding television, films, comic books, and artƒfrom a traditional values perspective; "Spin Doctor" will analyze major stories aired on the networks and attempt to put a counter-spin on stories that neglect their point of view; "E Pluribus Unum" will attempt to demonstrate the "shared cultural values" among Americans that transcend race, class, and gender (a sort of conservative version of multiculturalism). The service will be the first nationwide television system to admit to an explicit political agenda (made possible by the FCC's repeal of the "fairness doctrine" during the Reagan Administration). To launch this program, NET has engaged in large- scale fundraising to meet its $10 million annual first year budget; the William Brady Foundation, for example, gave the Free Congress Foundation a $1 million grant in the summer of 1993 to fund the expansion of the television network. The system will also be accepting advertising; several mainstream companies, such as Braun, Phillips CD-1 and Time-Life Music have already agreed to become sponsors. With its's ability to reach millions of people in their living rooms, NET could become the most powerful tool yet in intensifying the controversies that circulate around questions of cultural, social, and political policy.
For example, earlier this year, a traveling exhibit sponsored by the Indochina Arts Project in Boston featuring the works of twenty American and Vietnamese artists expressing the two perspectives on the Vietnam War, was denounced before arriving at museums in San Jose and Minneapolis by the local Vietnamese community for its alleged "pro-Communist" bias. After the protests, those two museums refused to mount the show, though it had previously traveled to nine major cities without incident. The organizer of the exhibit, himself a Vietnam veteran, may now be experiencing the after effects of this unintended publicity, finding that museums across the country are refusing to mount a subsequent, non-War related, exhibition of Vietnamese artists, fearing another round of adverse publicity. Another example of free expression clashing with unprompted local sensibilities: in Watsonville, Californiaƒa heavily Hispanic, agricultural town in northern Californiaƒthere was great controversy last year over a photo display at City Hall including portraits of the victims of the civil war in El Salvador, when 26 city government employees objected to the photos as "un-American." Though the city refused to take down the exhibit, it did promise to initiate closer review of future city-sponsored art projectsƒa response quite common among beleaguered municipal arts agencies, which implies the future possibility of self-censorship before potentially controversial artworks are ever shown.
From the left, the feminist writings of Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin have inspired a slew of attacks based on imagery that is deemed insensitive to women, or politically objectionable. This was certainly the case last year in Santa Cruz (hardly the heart of American conservatism) when feminist activists objected to a work of performance art at a local festival that they deemed would promote violence against women. That work continued to play to sold-out crowds despite an attempt by local feminists to organize pull-outs by local sponsors of the performance festival. This incident echoes a similar case at the University of Michigan, when feminist supporters of Catharine MacKinnon refused to permit a work conveying imagery of prostitution at a public forum.
Recently, some MacKinnon-inspired anti-pornography activists have developed a unique spin on the First Amendment, asserting that art they find offensive is not protected as "free speech" because it falls under the statutes prohibiting "sexual harassment." Since the beginning of the year, numerous art exhibits have been singled out by women and men as creating a "hostile work environment," thus falling under the sexual harassment guidelines of federal and local Equal Employment Opportunity statutes. These efforts likened "visual" with actual physical harassment, and succeeded in having removed from display such works as Goya's "Naked Maja," which a Pennsylvania college professor complained inspired sexual fantasies among her male students; a tapestry of images drawn from Norse mythology that included a naked sea goddess in a municipal building in Seattle; and a series of woodcuts that included a naked Aphrodite, hanging in the lobby of the City Hall of Menlo Park, California. All of these works were removed from public view after challenges were submitted alleging that they constituted "sexual harassment."
Another example of what is perceived as 'censorship' inspired by 'progressive' ideals was raised during the confirmation hearings of Sheldon Hackney, the new Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities. The strong policy against racial harassment that Hackney initiated at the University of Pennsylvania, and which led to sanctions against a student for calling a group of black women 'water buffalo', came back to haunt him. During the hearings, we witnessed a strange pirouette among Religious Right groups, who postured themselves as the advocates of "free speech" arrayed against the oppressive forces of "political correctness" on campus.