Thursday, April 3, 2025

NEH funding

 

Pay for Your Own “Pet Project”: Why Cutting NEH Funding Is the Right Move
Earlier today, President Trump made headlines by calling for major cuts—or even the elimination—of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Predictably, cultural institutions and political commentators rushed to defend the agency, insisting that any reduction in federal support constitutes an attack on education, history, and the arts. But behind the sentimental outcry lies a deeper truth: federal funding for the humanities does not serve all Americans equally. It enforces majority narratives, marginalizes dissenting voices, and forces taxpayers to subsidize cultural interpretations that often contradict their own convictions. I know this firsthand.
As a member of a minority branch of the Latter Day Saint movement that settled in Wisconsin and Michigan rather than Utah in the nineteenth century—and as someone unpaid by my church or my state—I have insights into what it means to be left entirely out of the funding ecosystem.
I am also a fiscally conservative libertarian with graduate-level training in the history of economic theory, which informs my understanding of how funding structures operate—and whom they serve. I would never receive a humanities grant, not as a Latter Day Saint from outside the Utah tradition and not as a libertarian, because neither my religious heritage nor my economic reasoning conforms to the prevailing orthodoxy that the National Endowment for the Humanities exists to subsidize.
From a libertarian and fiscally conservative standpoint, federal funding of the National Endowment for the Humanities raises deep ethical concerns. The NEH operates by taking tax dollars from every citizen—regardless of belief or background—and redistributing those funds to promote cultural, artistic, and historical narratives selected by committees and academic elites.
In practice, this mechanism reinforces prevailing orthodoxies, ensuring that the dominant voices of the majority are preserved and celebrated, while minority or dissenting viewpoints are either tokenized or entirely excluded.
This is not a neutral act. It is democratic redistribution of income used not for essential services, but to perpetuate specific cultural interpretations. The idea that “the winners write the history” is literalized when the NEH funds exhibits, publications, documentaries, and academic programs that reflect mainstream academic or political trends—effectively taxing the margins of society to advance narratives that may directly contradict their own heritage, faith, or convictions.
A liberal is someone who would vote for free puppy food, because puppies deserve to eat—and everyone deserves a puppy. A conservative, on the other hand, says: pay for your own “pet project.” To the liberal mindset, this seems noble: promoting “the humanities” is inherently good, they argue, so any expenditure is justified. The cost is immaterial if the goal is enlightenment or justice.
This is sentimental spending without limit, driven by heartstrings rather than checkbooks. It is the moral equivalent of buying rare Mormon history books with the family grocery budget, even when one’s credit card debt mirrors the $260,000 national debt per U.S. taxpayer. It might feel virtuous, but it is not sustainable. It is reckless.
The fiscally conservative response is not anti-humanities—it is pro-freedom and pro-stewardship. No citizen should be compelled to fund cultural narratives that do not represent them. No government should presume the authority to curate the nation’s conscience.
Humanities, if they are to mean anything, must arise organically from communities, not from centralized redistribution.
To cut NEH funding is not to declare war on the humanities—it is to reject the practice of weaponizing public money in favor of majority dogmas and elite preferences. It is to affirm that culture should be shaped by free individuals, not subsidized consensus.
About the author: John Hajicek is a historian and archivist specializing in early American religious movements. He has collected and preserved rare books, significant manuscripts, and early newspapers for over four decades. He is a member of a minority branch of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints that settled in Wisconsin and Michigan rather than Utah during the nineteenth century, and he writes from the perspective of both a religious and political minority.


Wednesday, April 2, 2025

44 Harsh Truths About Human Nature - Naval Ravikant

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyfUysrNaco

NEH funding

  Friends of the Mormon History Association John Hajicek    ·  t n d p r o e S o s f a h a i i   f 1 h r t c 1 0 A 6 5 5 l 0 : p 7 t u   a  ...