Donald Trump has fired all six members of an independent federal agency responsible for reviewing his controversial White House ballroom and planned “Arc de Trump” in Washington DC.
The Commission of Fine Arts was established in 1910, and is tasked with “giving expert advice to the President, the Congress and the federal and District of Columbia governments on matters of design and aesthetics”, according to its website.
Its purview includes reviewing designs proposed for memorials and new or renovated government buildings, and the commission is intended to be staffed by experts in art, architecture and urban design. There is no indication about whom Trump plans to appoint to the commission.
Did the Commission of Fine Arts deliver anything of non-subjective value?
They clearly were fired for critical opinions about the 2 vanity projects. If their expert opinions were used to help win lawsuits to prevent them from happening it’d be hundreds of millions of dollars saved.
Anyway all value is subjective, even dollars. If you are trying to say fine arts are not worth it then dont be a coward, come out and say it instead of trying to imply it by “just asking questions” Mr Tucker.
Social workers, engineers, & scientists deliver value beyond subjective opinion. Fine arts mostly seem like refined subjectivity & a racket for the ultra wealthy to store wealth. Why don’t you answer the actual question instead of cranking out hostility?
I don’t see how what appear to be glorified art critics sponsored by the government have any bearing on lawsuits. Is there a justification in terms of tangible benefit for such a government commission?
Ok I’ll take back coward since you came out and said it. I don’t want to hash out the value of government funding the arts here as others have written elsewhere on both sides of the subject more persuasively than either of us will do justice here. Suffice to say we likely differ in opinion.
I’ll research and give you an honest answer to your question if you first answer this: Why do you think Trump fired them?
That wasn’t the question. If you don’t want to answer real questions, then don’t.
You seem to want to pressure everyone to defensively preface their questions with “my opinions of Trump notwithstanding” just so thought-policing maligners like you don’t come at us with their hostile assumptions: it’s tiring & we need to oppose its normalization. We ought to be able to just pose the goddamn question, which I’m doing.
Instead of directly saying what you meant you posed what you thought was a gotcha question. You had an opinion to share which was this:
If you’ll allow me to extrapolate, and please correct me if this is wrong, your position boils down to: “good riddance they’re a waste of public spending anyway.”
Which fails to recognize Trump didn’t get rid of the commission, he just fired the 6 members. Theyll be replaced with sycophants and continue to spend whatever money they were before.
Again I’ll research and give you an honest answer to your initial question, but I want you to answer mine because I suspect you’re posting in bad faith and were just trying to hide your opinion (which again if you’re saying they’re a waste of spending they are not being cut just replaced). Why do you think they were fired?
I directly said it: the question.
Justifying the existence of the government commission in terms of a tangible benefit to the public would dispel doubts that it is worth keeping.
I was aware. In the case that its existence lacks much justification, that would make an argument that Trump’s mistake was not going far enough to just end the commission altogether. We shouldn’t have to state our inner thoughts or explain ourselves to pose a question.
A point of the question is that disapproving of bullshit firings is not enough to justify a government commission. We can disapprove of corruption & still find the commission unworthy. A separate justification would explain why it’s absolutely worth fighting for & that would make a more compelling reason to oppose Trump over it.
The problem is you think you’re psychic. I think we need to oppose the normalization of hostility by malign speculators attempting to suss out “bad faith”.
I would also suggest you look at where we are. Having to remind everyone we oppose Trump where the overwhelming sentiment opposes Trump is absurdly needy & exhausting. I’ve noticed lack of push back against that pernicious tendency, which I think is long overdue.
No one was talking about axing the commission until you showed up. It is not obvious to me from your question the point was about justifying the existence of the commission in a thread about about the firing of the heads of the commission because they had negative review of the 2 vanity projects because sacking the heads does not change its funding status.
You certainly don’t have to but then it forces others to fave to read into your thoughts to respond. You say I think I’m psychic but it only comes across that way when you’re not sharing what your thoughts are or explaining. We’ve moved past that because you’ve laid out what your thoughts were. Since you have I don’t think it really matters where you stand on the reason for the firings because it seems you’re saying the firing is justified because the commission doesn’t yield objective value (while at the same time acknowledging the firing has no impact on the commissions spending).
Anyway I did some research, here’s a response to your initial question:
The CFA mandate is rooted in the understanding that architecture and urban design are matters of public interest, not just subjective taste. You asked for something non-subjective? The buildings are physical objects standing right there in DC, what is more objective and concrete than actual concrete?
Edit - to be fair I did see spending that seems low valued and pretty loosely aligned to their mandate. $400 million for 2024 for these recipients seems pretty steep. But to say there’s no value in the CFA goes too far and funding of the CFA is a different topic entirely that what is focused on by the OP article which is about Trump firing what is supposed to be an independent organization because he didn’t like their report. The government benefits from independent, non-political groups to ground itself in reality and the inference to be gained from the article is that Trump is bulldozing that concept.
Later, you say:
Just say what you think. Asking a question like this when you really have an agenda is an attempt to set up a situation where everyone else has to work to answer you and you invest nothing, and then you get to sit atop the mountain as judge of their answer when you have no skin in the game and haven’t done anything to justify your opinion. It comes across as arrogant and haughty.
Look at how this thread turned out: diablexical played your game and you still contributed nothing while remaining disdainful of every reply.
This is why people label this bad faith. It’s also a technique widely applied by the far right, so people on a political forum are right to assume things about people “just asking questions” in order to protect their time.
I did: the question. Answer it or don’t. No one owes you more.
Don’t need to: wasn’t stated with a mere question. See how that works? They started drama with their adverse assumptions to try to draw out an irrelevant opinion & you’re blaming the other party: hypocrisy.
Again, having to defensively explain ourselves, because everyone is so insecure & bitter is exhausting, and no one should have to tolerate it, so I’m not. Neither should you.
Unwarranted, hostile presuppositions earn contempt.
Their answer (if it has any merit) is the contribution. There is no answer without a question. You’re welcome.
Another contribution is judging the caustic ways we shouldn’t approach questions. You’re welcome for that, too.
That’s presupposition. If a question isn’t worth your time, then don’t answer: easy. Speculatively maligning others with mindreading irrationality is toxic to discussion: no one compels such caustic behavior & it’s logically unsound. Imagining that irrationality ought to be the rules to govern discussion is peak reddit, which might be a better fit for such thinkers.
Questions in an online discussion don’t need justification. Socratic dialectic doesn’t need “justified” questions: it questions assumptions until we realize our ignorance. Asking uncomfortable questions is the point. I suspect you would claim Socrates & other philosophers who challenged conventionality by relentlessly questioning “obvious things” are “just asking questions” in “bad faith” & therefore they argue from “the far right”.
It’s bullshit: anyone can & does use the technique of “uncomfortable questions”. You just don’t like them being asked.