...Are there any Republicans in the arts?- Page 4

[PalJoey]

Posted: 3/14/05 at 4:59pm

Silence from the Bush supporters.

Goth will be here soon to respond: He'll blame it on Hillary.

But it bears repeating:

44 million Americans are without health insurance.

More than the total number of people living in Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Colorado combined.

[kelzama]

Posted: 3/14/05 at 5:03pm

Oh, and back on topic:

I know 3 leads on Broadway who are fiscal conservatives, but social liberals. They choose not to have their politics public, mostly because there is a very visceral reaction from the arts community in a how-dare-you-not-agree-with-us way.

[robbiej]

Posted: 3/14/05 at 5:11pm

kelzama,

Don't you think that is then an internal problem for the Republican party? Many of the Republicans I know (yes...I know and get along with several) profess over and over that are 'socially liberal' but prefer smaller government and to hold on to their own money. Which, of course, is something adults can rationally argue about. But I question why, if they are truly socially liberal, they do not speak up amongst their own and stake claim to the heart of the party. How has the Republican party, which once had a tradition of respecting the individual's rights (and money), become a party that demands conformitiy when it comes to people's sexual freedoms?

I, for one, think our country is hurt terribly by a two-party system. The many millions of people who did not vote in the last election are obviously not having their issues addressed in any meaningful way.

[AndiV]

Posted: 3/14/05 at 6:04pm

robbiej...i can completely understand where you are coming from...and even agree with your views about rights for all Americans. i would never try to convince you differently, or tell you that you are wrong in them. but i also don't feel like condenscention is ever necessary or beneficial.

and on the other side, which i tend to lean toward...i hate when Republicans act like by being a member of their party or voting Republican alone implies that you are morally superior.

and this has totally turned into a political discussion...which i don't think was the intention!

thanks to everyone for the info on the diverse political beleifs that aren't often seen publically. it has been very interesting to me!

[Chlydomnestra]

Posted: 3/14/05 at 6:51pm

Well, speaking as someone who has predominately voted republican, but will more or less vote for the candidate that best supports my views, I can honestly say that I believe President Bush no doubt would still be against gay marriage even if this weren't the case...but currently, the law still states marriage is between a man and a woman. No matter what you call it, a union or a marriage, it's close to the same thing. I have no doubt that someday this law will be ammended, but currently it is still in place, tying governments hands.
As for healthcare...I live in the state with the number one healthcare plan in the U.S. For those of you not familiar with your healthcare, etc...that state is surprisingly Tennessee. We have what is called TennCare, which is available for anyone under the age of 18 and anyone without access to health insurance, those below the poverty line, with mental health disorders or chronic illnesses. People have flocked from all states to get this healthcare, but our state is in financial ruin because of this. Our governor (a democrat, who I voted for) is fervently working towards a solution...but let me assure you, free healthcare does not work. Austrailia has free healthcare, but they also have 6 month or more waiting lists to see physicians and specialists. By that time, many have already waited too late to receive treatment, and that is why a lot of people come to the U.S. for healthcare. It is almost idealistic and foolish to think that everyone can get healthcare and not have it bankrupt our government (more than it already is). That isn't to say that I know the solution, but we have a large number of free clinics, urgent care units, etc...and that's more than what most nations have.
Sorry to rant...but I see the cost of free healthcare and it's kind of a sucking void. Tennessee might have the number one healthcare system in the U.S. but our schools are at the bottom of the list. (Wonder where the money went?) LOL

[AndiV]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 9:44am

Chlydomnestra--i am from TN TOO! i grew up in Nashville (well, Madison) and live in NYC now, but know a lot about TennCare. and you are right...especially with people out of state finding ways to be elegible for TennCare, it is quickly bankrupting the state! the idea of affordable health care for all is great...but i'm not sure that free is the way to go.

Updated On: 3/15/05 at 09:44 AM

[kelzama]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 10:07am

robbiej:

Hold onto your seat, because you're actually speaking with a diehard libertarian.

Mind your own business, I'll mind mine, and keep federal government involvement to an absolute minimum. Let big government take care of the infrastructure and defense. Eliminate most social spending. Let government work primarily on a local level. Allow citizens to keep the money they make and decide where to spend it instead of trying to tax them into oblivion. Switch to a national sales tax rather than a graduated income tax; you'll then pay your fair share, based on your consumption. Eliminate the IRS.

So now that I've described my idyllic world, reality sets in. With national election results being very close, I've got to use my vote to elect the candidates whose platforms most closely reflect my own. I don't want Uncle Sam in my bedroom anymore than you want him in yours; but I wouldn't throw away a presidential vote to a libertarian candidate anymore than most liberals would vote for Nader. I went with the odds. My vote goes to the candidate who most closely reflects that which directly affects my beliefs and standard of living vis-a-vis taxes and legislation. The chance that a marriage definition amendment will ever get passed is slim to none; there's a substantially greater chance that a liberal in office would mean a substantial increase in my personal tax liability.

As far as the social liberal argument goes, we have a paradigm. I think you would place a social liberal somewhere between conservative and liberal; I'd place them farther right, more toward libertarian (diametrically opposed to the fanatic religious right), and thus, vote Republican more from a pocketbook stance than anything.

[DreamFlyer22]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 10:18am

For the record... I'm registered Republican, but that's pretty much in name only. I'm Independant and am sickened by the idea of people who vote party line without actually considering the issues. The "Any Republican is better than that Democrat" and vice-versa mentality makes my head spin. That's why I hated the people back in November who, when we talked about the election, only responded that they voted the way they did because, "well, he isn't Bush." Swell. Now, uhm... wanna back that up with facts?

Also, this is a couple pages back in this thread now, but it irked me. For god sake, PLEASE don't bring Michael Moore and his films in to this discussion. While I'm sure he had more than a little truth when he started off, he puts so much of his own agenda in to it and is so damn obnoxious about it that I feel the REAL truth is lost in yet another bit of propoganda. I can handle a little Avenue Q jibing (I probably laugh the hardest at that line) and DRS clever rhyming.... but I can't stand Michael Moore.

[robbiej]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 10:52am

kelzama,

I LOVE libertarians. I may not agree with everything (I'm almost socialist in my belief that we should take care of each other), but that is an interesting, stimulating and healthy argument to have. What should government do for its citizens vs. what should citizens do for itself. It's a fascinating argument.

But the pushing to the fore the issue of gay marriage simply makes it impossible to have the truly important discussions. It's easier to play to people's fears and prejudices than it is to argue detailed and (quite frankly) unsexy points regarding sales tax re. income tax. I have no doubt why one would vote for Bush if they're a libertarian. My concern is that those same people are not speaking up for the core belief of 'I'll live my life and I see fit, you live yours and we'll just leave each other alone'.

As for healthcare, I'm slightly less socialist than on other issues. I'm all for making access to good health care (and I'm talking about yearly doctor visits to make sure everything is ok, not just when something is terribly wrong) affordable to all Americans. And yes...those who can afford more, get more. But I think it's ridiculous that many of my friends haven't seen a doctor in years.

[Galahad312]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 11:29am

Now your going to hear from an American living overseas and Im a Texan. This thread reminds me of what I love so much about New York people and of course all my fellow Americans everywhere. You have free thinking without the feelings of restriction this is always good and never lose this. I admire those that speak what they feel and do so with passion freely. I didn`t vote for Bush. I did vote over here but not for him.
I have seen in Europe where the reputation of my country is not so good these days. I do not blame anyone party ticket for this everyones responsible for their part in this world. Im not going to say its the presidents fault but we need to work together and rebuild this reputation as a whole, American people. If his administration is not doing that job then by all means lets vote more thoughtfully the next time around. thankyou.

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 12:37pm

Going back to John Kerry not being for gay marriage, I still think that it's pretty apparent that he wasn't going to let his personal beliefs govern the nation. That was one of the main reasons why I liked him over Bush. I don't trust George Bush not to use his religious beliefs in order to change policies and influence people. By using religion to put a wedge between people he's doing exactly what a president should not do. A president should make decisions that are best for everyone. That's why I trusted John Kerry over Bush. Kerry is religious, but he understands that not everyone is. Bush's jaw was practically immobile as he tried to squeeze out that he believes everyone has freedom to believe what they want during the debates.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 12:52pm

Interesting MrMidwest, I didn't trust Kerry. I did not like his viewpoint that we should consult with France and Germany. The U.S. has to make decisions based on us, not on what the corrupt UN thinks. Towards the end of the election, him going duck hunting was the silliest thing I've ever seen. I also did not think that his wife supported him for president. I think she wanted to get status from being First Lady, but when that grew old she'd move on to something else.

Updated On: 3/15/05 at 12:52 PM

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 1:02pm

Well, the "Global Test" thing was pretty blown out of proportion. It's not like he said we should put other countries before our own safety. He just thought it was good to get different viewpoints. As for the duck hunting thing, well, photo ops are something that all candidates do. I didn't find it any sillier than bush in the airforce uniform. Also, I wasn't the biggest fan of Kerry's wife either.

Truth be told, I would've much prefered Howard Dean over Kerry, but between Bush and Kerry I personally felt more comfortable with Kerry.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 1:23pm

"Truth be told, I would've much prefered Howard Dean"

Dean is splitting the Democratic party in two. He is pushing conservative Democrats right out of the party. It's going to be the Dean/Kerry/Kennedy Party against the Clinton Party.

[mattvcrewse]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 5:12pm

robbiej:

For some odd reason, my post didn't go through last time, so I'll post it again, although I don't remember exactly what I said...

My main point is, and I think we can both agree on this, there has always been political theatre, and there has always been theatre that simply wanted to entertain. Some shows make may a statement about something, but they aren't overtly politcal, like some works. It doesn't HAVE to be either way. I never said "the good old days". There was never a time when theatre was soley entertainment, and I can't speak from experience because I wasn't alive then, but from reading, seeing movies and revivals, etc., I can come to the conclusion that there were a greater number of shows that were designed to entertain, rather than to make political or social commentary, than the ratio today.

However theatre must be entertaining to hold an audiences attention long enough to get the point across. Art has to be. For example, I go to museums because I enjoy seeing the artwork. Some of it, well most of it, may be thought-provoking, but I go because I enjoy it. Personally, I hate preachy shows of any kind, and I really hate being beaten in the face with a theme over and over. For instance, I hat ethe use of the screen in The Glass Menagerie. William's characters are so richly developed and the dialouge is so wonderful, that we don't have to see "Terror!" projected onto a screen to understand that Laura is terrified of social contact. We can see that though observing her.

I may have come across as flying to one extreme. My fault.

FYI... I'm a Libertarian.

[robbiej]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 5:29pm

Are they using the original Williams' projections in this revival? Fascinating! I'm seeing it tomorrow night and will post more about that.

I couldn't agree more. All art, whether political or solely for entertainments sake, must hold the interest. One of my bathroom books (lovely image, I know) is a book on NY Times reviews from 1920 to 1970. It's amazing to realize the depth of socially conscious theatre ie. MACHINAL, as well as the lighter fare. In fact, I would say that, other than the AIDS crisis, political theatre has been rather wan the last two decades.

[mattvcrewse]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 5:43pm

robbiej:

I haven't seen the revival. I don't live in NY anyway.

Funny how in discussions when someone brings up another point, the original party tends to get defensive, eh?

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 5:46pm

go Kerry!!!! he is my president!!! i wont accept anyone else.

[Chlydomnestra]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 6:49pm

Well, I'm not sure where I stand on mixing religion and politics, because I so often allow my own religious convictions to effect my thinking. I think that it is idealistic to think that any candidate who thinks of himself/herself as religious could truly seperate them. Bush was always very forward in his beliefs and still the majority voted for him. He won popular and electoral. Anyway, I think every other country that has a leader tends to allow their religion into their politics. I mean...take predominately Muslim countries, where it is law that women should cover themselves. I realize they are not a democratic nation, but I assure you there are more leaders in American history that have proposed a law, etc based on some sort of religious idea or belief than we even know...and that doesn't mean it's right or wrong, but I just think it is what it is and it's very difficult to seperate the two. Political Leaders are like the weather, if you don't like them...wait a while, they'll change.

[Plum]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 7:25pm

Mixing religion and politics is inevitable, guys. Your religious upbringing (or lack thereof) affect your values and outlook- and that, in turn, is bound to affect your politics. But people have to understand that this is a pluralistic country, and the Constitution forbade Congress (and through the 14th Amendment, the states) from making a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" for a reason.

And going back to the title of this thread- my best Republican friends are a cellist, a pianist, and a photographer.
Updated On: 3/15/05 at 07:25 PM

[sassypanz]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 8:56pm

Ha!

[kangaroo]

Posted: 3/15/05 at 9:13pm

This is why you shouldn't bring up politics on a message board.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 2:59am

I'm sure many older works seem less "political" as our society has evolved. But, imagine a time where merely seeing a woman or person of color portrayed in a certain light was "political". It can be that subtle. It much like the greater number of gay characters in TV and film and plays today. Merely having a gay character can be "political". This can apply to many ideas that are being discussed today.

Updated On: 3/16/05 at 02:59 AM

[AndiV]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 9:31am

forgive me if i sound ignorant trying to convey this...

i am reading a book currently by Uta Hagen. in it she talks about French theatre however many years ago and how it differs from American theatre. in France, different theaters had different idealologies, different statements that they were making. you knew what X theater would say about a political topic (or culterural...or artistic) and you knew what Y would say, and you would go to a theatre sometimes based on that. in America it is more entertainment driven and finacially driven, not always as much about making a statement. (though i am aware that that is not exclusively true.)

personally, i think the lines are blurred in America...that you can see both entertainment and statements being made.

i don't have the book in front of me, so i may edit this for clarity later...

thoughts?

[robbiej]

Posted: 3/16/05 at 10:33am

Well, I certainly think you can expect socially conscious (mostly left-leaning) work from The Public. Not so much from some of the other institutional theaters here in NYC. And we can all surmise that if the name Weissler is on a production, then it will be mass-marketed to appeal to as many theatres as possible.

There are other, smaller off and off-off theatres that have stronger political mission statements than others. But when it comes to the 'big time', politics is something best left hidden, if ya want to make a profit (I wonder if all those folks who attend MOVIN' OUT are aware of its political statements or if they just want to hear Billy Joel's music).

Someone who has always puzzled me is Bruce Springsteen. Clearly, he's to the left of me and Bella Abzug and he doesn't hide his leanings. But, somehow, he's been embraced by the 'common man', who, we are told, are more conservative. I find him fascinating (and his ass shot on the BORN IN THE USA ablum still thrills me).