> 1) I don't see how this proposal is any easier to sell than any other arts funding proposal in recent history. As a tax credit, it takes $20 billion away from federal revenues, so isn't it government support for the arts? There's an exceedingly long history of opposition to arts funding, from "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle" to "Piss Christ." What about this proposal makes it any more palatable to the George Donderos and Pat Buchanans of this world?
If you explore this further, you will begin to see that "goals" have to be developed _within_ mass political movements, NOT worked out by theorists or other pundis in advance and then implemented by movements. In other words, you have in one brief paragraph demolished the Featherstone/Henwood/Parenti argument in their article, "Action Will Be Taken." First there must be action, then within that action goals are gradually theorized. Goals cannot be proposed by mere theorists.
Carrol