The Art of the Vote.

DURING AN EVENING of interviews, demonstration and discussion with 91-year-old dancer/anthropologist Katherine Dunham, sponsored by the Dunham Institute at New York's City Center, I sat next to a well-known dance company director who, when I casually mentioned the Democratic convention on TV that evening, replied heatedly, "Oh, no! I've managed to avoid all of that mess so far." I knew what he meant. According to the Nielsen ratings, some 52 million viewers had switched off their TVs within the first twenty minutes of the Republican convention two weeks earlier. Also significant, I felt, was the recent poll that showed the majority of people ages 18 to 26 felt that they were not represented by government. Alienation generates apathy. Or anger. We need our dissenting voices and our controversies. Artists have traditionally been a source of both.

Within the past decade, the positions held by the two major parties on the all-important issue of support for the arts in Washington are well documented. Support for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), a sadly underfunded government agency in Washington, has become an issue that can be said to separate those who support the arts from those who don't. Bill Ivey, the chairman of the NEA, addressed the Americans for the Arts annual conference this August and reminded us that "in a nation that has been infamous, if not notorious, for cold-shouldering its creativity, its cultural heritage and its creative talents," we still need to work even harder at establishing "the value of the arts." The NEA, Ivey said, is one of the leading organizations that is gathering the evidence "necessary to establish artists as a unique class of citizens and workers, a class of citizens that makes an indispensable contribution to the lives of America's communities and families."

I read through the Republican Party platform and found no references to the arts. The Democrats, on the other hand, state specifically in their platform that, as a national party, they support the NEA. But party platforms can conveniently be overlooked.

Okay. So ask the candidates. There is a mistaken impression that they are much the same. You will be weighing what they have to say about, among other things, education, poverty, taxes, energy, global warming, foreign policy, international relations, cultural diversity, Medicare, Social Security, national defense, gun control--as well as the future of support for the arts in America. Mr. Bush has said very little about the arts in America, but his campaign headquarters in Austin, Texas, produced this quote, after two days of searching: "Governor Bush believes we should continue federal funding for the arts but give states a greater say in how the funds are spent. The governor does not believe we should give public money to support obscene material or denigrate religion." Nothing original, and we've heard this from other conservatives before. He does not define "obscene material" nor explain who in his administration would be making those definitions for us, nor does he talk about First Amendment rights (freedom of speech) for dissenting voices, including those of our artists. Mr. Gore, on the other hand, in an interview on ABC World News, said in June: "A lot of people disagree with me on this, but I think that the arts are a little bit like air and water. We need them to live. There are ways that we communicate with one another that go beyond words and language. Some of our highest values are absorbed through inspirational artwork. And I think that a great country expresses its greatness in part by having support for the arts."

Although the Clinton administration has not produced any remarkable advances for the NEA, under its watch the NEA has continued to exist despite ongoing attempts by conservatives to close it down. (Check out the NEA's Web site in order to learn more: www.arts.gov./endownews.) I do not think that the newly minted "compassionate conservatism" of the Bush party includes support for the NEA, or artists, or the arts. It seems unlikely that the man who avoids debate on so many national issues is going to risk a firestorm over governmental funding for the NEA. The enormous growth of arts communities (especially dance!) in Texas was funded primarily by a wealthy private sector--many of whose members, I suspect, are conservatives--long before Bush became governor.

Candidates for President, however, although influential in affecting national attitudes toward the arts, may not be as important in the long run as your member of Congress or your local representatives. The most important work often gets done at the state or local level, where we are. And these elected men and women are accountable to us at the polling booths this month.

It is an unfortunate fact that support for the arts in America is still controversial, but our controversies often generate new ways of perception. On the subject of controversy, I want to quote from a letter written by Bertrand Russell, one of the twentieth century's great philosophers: "It is not controversy and open differences," Russell wrote, "that endanger democracy. On the contrary, these are its greatest safeguards. It is an essential part of democracy that substantial groups, even majorities, should extend toleration to dissentient groups, however small and however much their sentiments may be outraged.... In a democracy, it is necessary that people should learn to endure having their sentiments outraged."

Those among us who say that our vote in this upcoming campaign is insignificant may remember that important elections have been won on what is called "the margins." Political strategists on both sides now seem to agree that 90 percent of the 103 million people who will actually vote (out of 148 million registered voters in a population of 273 million) have already made up their minds. Only five million are undecided, and of those, fewer than one million votes cast in so-called swing states could determine the election. With our livelihoods as well as our lifestyles grounded in the arts, we cannot overlook this "mess," as my friend called it. We must tell this to the people who count, who need to be reminded of the power that each of us has--every four years, at least; every two years. Every day.

Richard Philp has been an editor at Dance Magazine since 1970.