Brinkley, David

Donaldson, Sam

Will, George

English

DigitalCommons@URI

University of Rhode IslandDigitalCommons@URIObscenity: News Articles (1989) Education: National Endowment for the Arts andHumanities, Subject Files II (1962-1996)1989Obscenity: News Articles (1989): Speech 01David BrinkleySam DonaldsonSee next page for additional authorsFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_II_58This Speech is brought to you for free and open access by the Education: National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, Subject Files II(1962-1996) at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Obscenity: News Articles (1989) by an authorized administrator ofDigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@etal.uri.edu.Recommended CitationBrinkley, David; Donaldson, Sam; and Will, George, "Obscenity: News Articles (1989): Speech 01" (1989). Obscenity: News Articles(1989). Paper 12.http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_II_58/12http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_II_58/12AuthorsDavid Brinkley, Sam Donaldson, and George WillThis speech is available at DigitalCommons@URI: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/pell_neh_II_58/12.AOC· '''iHIS WEER WTrn DAV!D BRINKLE¥'' WITH lDST I DAVID BRINKLEY .JOINED BY SAM ~ AND Ga:RGE WILL AND 'ltM WICKER SUNDAY, JULY 30; 1989 MR. BRINKLEY: Back ih tynddh Johnson's day, ~ us ~t set up an .;1.~cy to give a little bit of trefiey, it mme:i out in the beginning, ~ ngw it's nore; to various aspect:S of the arta ---Il1USic, dance, pr:ilnQ.pg, so an. It has grown substanti.aily nt:M, and this ~ Senator Jesse ~~ of Nc;>:rtb pgoJ..ina, rather a ~tive fellOW', was offended :oy an art show, done by Robert Mapplethorpe or Miipl~tliQti;>e? Lbes anyene? Huh? MR. WILL: MappletlloIJ;ie . .MR. BRINKLEY: Ma: leth.o which he +-i-.n.,,.J.,t was Vli1-- -pp ----~' -- -- ..... ~~~ gar, inQ~t, so dn and so on. So he has a bill in- t.be ~~ -t:Q disallow f~ ·pr;mey for art that iS, as he puts it, what was his temi.? What were_ his ggj~~? MR. WICKER: Well he USed "i:hdecen:t" and ''obscene.'' -----. I MR. BRINKLEY: .Cdver· all bases. MR. WILL: And, :r ~, "offensive" to other groups -:MR. ~= Or that offends any group, ethnic ,,,,.,. MR. WICKER: Religious o:r non-~llgiqus. MR. ~: What have you. MR. ~= So, what's this going to do? MR. ~= Well, h~'s :t:be problem. In 1965, I think it ~, when the rta:tidhal ~t ~ ~ted., it was opposed by sare Replll:>li~ in eongmss. But do :you know W!Iy? !!hose- -RE3publicans dpfX>SEd it beCalJ$~ they didn't want gOveniinefit to try to tell artists what to write or to paint, or what sort of poan to _ a:mpose. And they ~rried that if thei:e was a national endo!tarent dispensing m::mey, government would get its big hand in there on content. Now, these to ma, were the true c:onseIVati ves. '!hat's the true conservative position. A Jesse Helms, who wants to censor, who 'f«ll1ts to prevent artists fran any sort of f:ree expression, which~ can look at and say, "Ah, I don't want to watch that, that's vulgar. " '!hat's our privilege. But to tty to prevent them fran being exhibited, I think, is not the c:onseIVative position, that's simply censorship. MR. WICKER: But Sam, that overlooks the question of govemment financing. I maan, of course your :p:>Sition is right in teIJns of the freed.an of expression, but I think there is a problem here when the taxpayers are paying. And I think it's bound to be that at sane point, if you are financing expressions, whether it's painting, or writing, or whatever, that anger and baffle the people who are paying for it, then you' re going to get into trouble. And 11¥ own view is, while I yield to no one in 11¥ lO!N i:egairl for Senator Helms, or for this anendnent that he's put in -MR. ~= Do you want to ann wrestle over it? MR. WICKER: -- nonetheless it seems to ma that this kind of controversy was bound to arise out of this sooner or later. And I think what you'll find is that the federal govemment ultinately, no natter what procedure for awarding grants is adopt:e:i, the federal govemment will support art that is sarewhere within the tn:oa.dest bOlmdaries. And what I believe is sanetines referred to as "cutting edge art, " is going to have to be financed privately. I don't believe the taxpayers will do that ultinately. MR. BRINKLEY: So what you're saying is ~t never will give m::mey to art that is -- what's the tenn -- avant-garde? MR. WICKER: No, I wouldn't want to say that because avant-garde art is itself not necessarily --MR. BRINKLEY: Well, you can say that if you want. MR. WICKER: -- couldn't necessarily be accused of being obscene or indecent. But the kind of art that is going to be, in tems of not one's perceptions so Imich, but in term; of one's beliefs -- offensive to great numbers of people, I think the federal govemment will always have difficulty financing that. MR. WILL: I 'WOUld disagree with you. Sam, in this particular -- and I think I'm on your side in this -- but, to refuse to . subsidize an activity, does not anount to censoring the activity. And the National Endovment for the Arts has a pretty good reputation in the 24 years they've given 80,000 grants -- about 20 of than have caused sare kind of tuIIrDil. Senator Helm's anendment may pass, because who 'Wallts, in this age of negative advertising, to be hit with a campaign cat11ercial later on that you're for sa.c:lo-masochistic photography and that sort of thing. But, if this little episode has not let say, a chilling effect, but calls the e.nc:k7tm:mt reek to a kind of pnrlence, that's a good thing. '!he problem is not just offensive art. It's art - I think you used the word baffles the :public. It's nonsense art -what's called p:>St-minimalist art. I nean the examples are \\Uilderful. '!here was an exhibit in the Tate Gallecy in IDndon a few years ago that was a pile of bricks. Only no one told the janitor, and he cleaned it up, took away this priceless piece of art. '!here was another one in the Tate Gallecy, it was a child's bathtub and no one told him it was an exhibit and they cooled rear in it. So, I nean art gets to be very difficult -MR. BRINKLEY: r:::oes any - let ne ask one question. OJes anyone here feel qualified to say what art is nCM? MR. ~= Art is what you think it is. It's what - it's like that great Potter Stewart (?) thing about i;x>mogra.phy, "I JmCM it when I see it." You kn.CM I may care in your hate and look at a printing that you just think is wonderful and think to ieyself, "Why, I wouldn't put that in the doghouse. " 'll1at -- we may have saoa tum011 ground if ooth of you are saying that govemrcen.t m:mey does can:y with it the strings of censorship whether it is expressed directly or whether it is that great numbers of voters who provide this m:mey through their taxes are not going to stand for it. Yes, I urderstand and that may be an argunent, but the original Republicans were correct on we might not have govemrcen.t funding. MR. WICKER: I think that's so and I think we ought not to overlook here in this controversy while we're focusing on art that the :real substance of it may be politics because this amandrrent, at least by the assessrrents that I've :read, is probably not going to pass. But if anytxxly can be shown to have defea.te:i it then that's an issue that can be used against him as you said. MR. WILL: Well, --MR. WICKER: I think not unlike the flag burning issue, this is an effort to create an issue that could be used later on. MR. IXlNAIDSON: But you know -- go ahead, George. MR. WILL: But to give Jesse Helms his due, I mean he did say, "Look, if sareone wants to write dirty words on the nen's :roan wall, there's no :reason why the taxpayers ought to buy the crayons. " '!here's sare :rough truth in that. MR. BRINKLEY: Well, does that settle that? MR. WILL: Yes. MR. BRINKLEY: Okay. (laughter) Fine, but --MR. WICKER: So long as it's not a good \\Urd. for Jesse Helms. (laughter) MR. BRINKLEY: He's fran your harestate and mine. MR. IXlNAIDSON: And yours I David. MR. BRINKLEY: And mine, right. NoW', we've seen a bit of a tuinaround in the Senate on the subject, George, that you've written a column al:x:mt today, the capital gains tax. 'lllat is a tax on sarething you sell that has increased in value, I think that's what capital gains is. Sare countries don't tax capital gains at all. We used to tax it at a much l~ rate than incc::ne. We now tax it at the sane rate as incare and President Bush has pushed since day one, even in his campaign to l~ the tax on capital gains. Is this a good idea? I --MR. WILL: Well, in the first place --MR. BRINKLEY: If so, what's good al:x:mt it? MR. WILL: -- it's a good idea. for the President to try and fulfill one of the very few substantive ccmnit:nents made during the last campaign which is to try and cut this. I think it's \\Urth the try. I nean the theo.cy is that if you cut that people will, A, first of all there'll be a rush to liquidate sare capital and nove it into other areas, perllaps nore pra:iuctive areas in the econan.y. And that will bring an .i.rme:ti.ate gusher·of reven.uef' to the goverrment and that's one of the prlire notivations nere. It's a way to help dcxige the Gramn-Rudrran guillotine yet again. But the theo.cy is --MR. WICKER: For only a year or two really, I guess. MR. WILL: -- that - for only a year or two, that's right . . Well, but sane people think it will institutionalize a higher velocity of capital and make growth IID:re rapid anyway, but be that as it nay, this is -- it's hard to argue this nCM because it is trickle down ecanani.cs. '!hey' :re saying basically now, obviously it helps the non:nal walking around Anerican who sells fann or house or a nest egg of securities, but also basically this is saying, "we are going to cut this to enerrgize the investing capital-holding elite" -- in a word of one syllable, the rich. MR. J:XHUDSON: Yes, it is a terrific idea if you're wealthy, I nean, because you just get 'W0althier. But it's not a good idea if you' :re kind of the average to lower-average taxpayer. MR. WILL: 'Well, what --MR. IX'NAIDSON: Now, the ai:gunent is made that these people sell hares. You know why they sell hares? Usually to buy another hate. And. of course the tax law already takes care of that, because when they roll over their investment they don't have to pay taxes an it. '!he average middle class person doesn't sell a hare because they want to take the $100, 000 or $300, 000 and go out and buy a yacht. MR. BRINKLEY: It's all very nice to say this is a benefit to the rich, but essentially -MR. IX'NAIDSON: 'Well, it is --MR. BRINKLEY: well now, wait a minute. MR. ~: -- a benefit to the rich. MR. BRINKLEY: When your Aunt Minnie sells a house and makes a little m::ney on it, that's a capital gain. MR. J:XHUDSON: What does she do with the m:m.ey? MR. BRINKLEY: She doesn't have to be rich. MR. IX'NAIDSON: What does -- what does that have to do -MR. BRINKLEY: It's up to her. She can buy another house, or she can --MR. IXJNAU>Srn: well, she'd better buy another house, or old Almt Minnie's not going to have anyplace to live. MR. WILL: Well, or go into an a~t: ..,..,. MR.. J:XJNAIDSON: Uni0Ss, of course, she's ~thy, ih Which case she, s got:: 't9 -MR. WICKER: Can r nake a couple of pgmt§ b~? MR. BRINKLEY: NOW hdld oh, held on. capital gam ~~tittlJy ie W~Uon. In:fi.atioo. MR. J:XJNAIDSON: 'lhat' s right. MR. ~= Govemment helps to create ln:flation, and then t:aXes it. Is that rair? -M_R •. IXJNAILSJN: Weli, if ~t haS to bti;Y t.hihgB that have had an W~ti~ rise, who's 90in<J to :pay for it? MR. BRINKLEY: Well, the saili3 people who've always paid fq_r it~ (Cross talk. ) MR. w.tdRER: But you have j~t ~~~ ~t -~. IXlNAI.lSJN: No, oo - no, oo. You've just suggestei:i that the . . . le that have had inflation +~'VT'\:nn::n"CI! - cane - 6il thEm +-'hi:W .. :peop .. --- - --- -- ·- - . I ~.l......,...,I up I .,....,...l shouldn't have to pay accordingly. 13qt,-if tbE:! ~t has to buy a n~ a-~, or a new rettleship With ififlaticm --MR. WICKER: No, ho -= MR. JXINAinSQN:: ~·re not goiruj to pay for it. MR. w,rCKER: I disaq.ree .-... 1-fR. W{Cl{ER: - that capital gaih is necessarily inflation. The:te is sare .... ~ MR •. BRINKLEY: ~l.l, a. lot of it is. :MR. wrCKER: - real gain, on occasion, but beyond that :point, in the first p~ce it seems to me this is a .bad idea, because it was part of the an:anganent made wtign ~ had the big tax refonn a few years ago, t;.lti.i;; was one of the .so-called loopholes given up in qi:Q~ to justify the decline in ~ overall tax rate. 'IM.t' s the fi.rSt point. The second point is that I don't really believe that on the .~ 13cale, this will stimulate .i.nveStment. That 'WaS the argunent ma.de fo:r; ~ big ~ C\lt of 1~e1, and even if it did stirtntl.ate .i.hVestnent then, why should we ncM have to biive anqtb.Eg break for · le in oi:d.er to stim.tl:ate .iilveStit!Emt? ----. --- -. peop And the ~ ~g :i,13, C3IlCi I think this is the question that ma.J.ly Cdhcems me mst, and that is tll.at t.bgre' 13 g ~ ~f~,JJ,pg ,in this country anyway that the ricli ge"t tile bteaks. And even if this ~ @1;, 13~i,c::tj.y ~, a bJ:eak for the rich -althollgh f believe it i,13 ""'"" I ggn't t;hi.nk ~ ~ to create an inipi:eSsion Il.CM. on people on a very broad sc:ale ~t ~ ~13 ~ t:ne President are adVOCatiilg and provid.ihg another tax break for the rich When the J?09~ pE;!Qpl~ ·ga:i't getting anything like that - the middle cJ..ass -= -MR. WILL: we11 this · let's - the - -- t is that thiS --· . . -- - - . , again, ai:gumen Will etie!l:gize the rich, that the rich am, naybe Vi.ilgap, n:aytJe the source of -MR. WICKER.: ~ll, ~t ~s tjl~ ~t in 1961. Why do \...e have to ene.tgize them all over again? -MR. WILL: ~l:-l, thf:! ~tj,QP is, i13 it working· and w.ili it -work? 'lhls .--. f ~, I'd jU?t ·:u:ke tQ @~ it Qis~~ ~ a.$ fran an ertplrical 0cdhdtiic question,_. :tat.her than sort of a pr;iori mral posiQ.on, ~t we. don't want the rith t6 ~ --(Cross talk. ) MR. IXlNALOOdN: iihe interesting pqlitj.~1. ~' Tam -MR· WICKER.: well, I d.6il.'t thi:rlk that's an a priori question, if you' re not :r.;iGh. Lii;;~ ...;... MR. ~=. One way you ~ riCh. is econ.cmic botihey. ~. WICKER: -- I OOUld sell. sc;:me stock, but I'm not going to go and invest in a co:r;po~t,iQJl --MR. rx::JNALLSQN: '!he litlcal -- the interea·Hnn - litieal. = - -- - -- - p::> ........ "=' po MR. WICKER: I just play the~· MR. ~= -- equation here is whether the ~ts are <ping to get anything for this. ~ :(IDs~, Qhall:man of the ways and Means Carmittee, a few -weeks back sort of suggested he might go for this, but the tradeoff was that Bush ~ go for sare :real taxation. MR. WICKER: Well, that's right. MR· J:X6AI.DSCE: New, we don't know 'Whether Bush is going to have to produce the :real taxation -(Crosstalk. ) MR. BRINKLEY: Dan 't even know yet if this is going to beccne law. MR. OONAinsaN: 'lllat' s right. MR. BRINKLEY: So, 'While we wait breathlessly the outcxue --(laughs) -- of this dispute, what --MR. OONAinsaN: And Almt Tillie. MR. BRINKLEY: - this 'W0ek there 'iN0I:e votes in Congmss an the Secretary of -- an the budget the Secretary of Defense made up and they cut it to ribbons. George, what's going an? MR. WILL: Well, one thing that's going an, they put back in Or.u 'WSapan system:; the Secretary wants to kill. It's an interesting i:eversal of :roles. 'll1e Republicans are supposing wanting to overnm the oountry but as the 'Washington Post says in an editorial this mming, the DenDcrats don't like the weapons but they like the jobs, so they' 11 take the 'WSapans because they' re made by Alrerican laborers. With regard to other 'WSapan system:; they trllmed m:mey fran the B-2. In other \\Oms, they' re going to do it, but do it in the \\OI'St possible way, 'Which is to say make every unit cost nm:e expensive by stretching it out; then, they' 11 c:x:ue back next year and say, "Good God, the costs have gone up." '!hey voted against a lot of m:mey to make the MX nobile and voted to kill the Midgetman, which suggests that they think that our missiles are deployed adequately now. .And no one thinks that. MR. OONAinsaN: Well, I think Congress is applying the Willie Sutton rule to the Defense Departnent. Wilie Sutton, the bank robber I aske:::i 'M'ly he :robbed banks I said that' S where the l1Dlley is• Congress has discovered that this defense budget that Casper Weinberger just kept as high as he could, and Ronald Reagan, I don't want to forget him --now it's where the llDiley is and they're going to fund their own projects --MR. BRINKLEY: There's no danger of your forgetting Ronald . Reagan. MR. OCNAIL\SOO: No one can forget Ronald Reagan and pnlperly so. And so they're going to slash it to get the m.:mey for other --MR. BRINKLEY (?) : Sale of us would like to. MR. OCNAIL\SOO: -- oh please -- before other, other departnelts. As far as the B-2 is concemed, I don't know why we need a marmed 1xEber. By the tine the marmed banber gets to the Soviet Union, whether it's the B-2 or the B-1, if we haven't blown than to you-know-what with our missiles, what have we spent all these billions of dollars on the missiles for? MR. WILL: To prevent war. MR. BRINKLEY: Anyone care to answer that question in the remaining ten seconds? MR. WILL: Yes. MR. BRINKLEY: George? MR. WILL: We have the missiles and the banbers so that they won't have to be used to prevent war - it's called deterrence and it has worked. MR. i:nw:.nsaN: And we have to have ten tines enough? MR. BRINKLEY: All right. Well, Sam, we' 11 have to put it up another tine. Tine is up. MR. i:nw:.nsaN: 'lllank you for your views, Tan. MR. BRINKLEY: 'lllank you all very nD.lch. '!bank you. END 

Obscenity: News Articles (1989): Speech 01

https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1008&amp;context=pell_neh_II_58

Obscenity: News Articles (1989): Speech 01

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DigitalCommons@URI