On the long two-leg trip from Washington, D.C. today, I had a lot of time to think about the furor over the federal budget and taxes and who should be paying for what. Of course, I know very little about budgets of the size required to manage the financial affairs of the richest, most powerful country in the world. I spent some time trying to figure out what the major difference is between “conservatives” and “liberals,” between those who aren’t afraid of the kind of “socialism” that attempts to provide at least minimum health care and social security for all the citizens of a country... and those who are afraid of it. Perhaps afraid isn’t the the best word choice. Perhaps it would be more correct to frame the question with “those who like” and those who dislike” socialism.

My thinking today falls into a simplistic category, but a category that is consistent with my life’s work, the work from which I am now retired but haven’t forgotten. I think it may be a matter of education... It’s not a matter of whether or not a person has gone to school long enough to be called an educated person. Perhaps it’s what was studied and continues to be of interest to an individual that determines to some extent whether one is “liberal” or “conservative.” A certain kind of schooling results in what is called a “liberal education.”

I know someone who thinks the arts are basically worthless, a huge waste of time. He really believes public art is especially wasteful. As long as there are sewer systems and roads that need repair, he believes we should not divert money away from those projects to install statues and murals in public places with public money. When I ask about the possibility of doing both kinds of public projects, he laughs and says I am a foolish idealist whose ideas should not lead to wasting public money. If I want statues or paintings in my home, that’s fine with him; but art should always be a private thing.

I wrote a note to my study group today that included some of my thoughts about what artists to do for us. My note begins with the following paragraph: “We are given permission by artists to examine what we might otherwise hesitate to approach. They invite us to march boldly into places we would normally avoid. We are allowed to leave behind momentarily who we are by stepping into the shoes of someone else. You may ask, “Why would I want to do that? Why should I have any interest in being a ‘pretend’ prostitute even temporarily. What interest should I have in being a thief or a drug addict or an adulterer? Do I really gain any insight by temporarily experiencing the mental anguish and moral dilemmas of Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov, an impoverished student in St. Petersburg?”  Does Doestoevsky's Crime and Punishment inform me in any meaningful, useful way? I think it does.