In nineteenth century America there arose a bumpkin aristocracy of businessmen. I call them this because they arose not from aristocracy, but were often self-made men, pulling themselves up into positions of wealth and power by strength of will, hard work and sometimes less than ethical practices. They disdained the arts and higher education, did not understand them nor think them important and did not see any wisdom of teaching them to the masses, many of whom would be their workers, because they wanted marginally educated workers who wouldn't question their authority. Of what use could arts be to common working men? At best, they believed that the arts were for women, whose only proper place was in the home or as a polished ornament to be displayed at social functions. This bumpkin aristocracy is America's legacy, and because businessmen have been America's quasi-aristocracy and usually politically conservative, it is still a predominating philosophy that we see primarily in the Republican Party and conservative politics in general, in that many citizens do not see the wisdom of supporting the arts and a broad, liberal education.

A real aristocrat was required a broad education and a sense of responsibility to the culture. But these American businessmen did not have that background. Yet there have been notable exceptions in our history: Carnegie, Mellon, Rockefeller, etc., great philanthropists of the arts and humanities. Their legacies have been invaluable to our society. But was their philanthropy concern for the culture or self-promotion, leaving for posterity a monument to themselves? Most of these businessmen bequeathed their fortunes late in life, after they had amassed secure wealth and social power. What could they do next? Or did they have a change of heart once they reached a secure position? Whatever their reasons, we have gained and will continue to gain from their generosity.

Still, this does not address the anti-arts problem in America which is symptomatic of a larger problem. However, the most important question is not whether government should or not provide support for the arts, but whether a broad, liberal education should be provided - one that not only teaches the basics of reading, math and science skills, but also the cultural background so that students can find their place in the larger society and have a sense of our history. In a society that has compulsory secondary education why should we not teach a full cultural background? We are failing in this miserably, and I assert that many of the problems in contemporary education and with the students are because they are not taught cultural literacy. The humanities are neglected. They are no longer taught the basics of democratic government and human rights. How then do we expect them to function in and carry on a democratic society? And beyond that, to attempt some understanding of the human condition?

Too many of our schools turn out culturally illiterate students who are fodder for antidemocratic and authoritarian manipulation. Should we ask ourselves, is this a conspiracy of big business? The back-to-basics education movement may turn out competent, technical workers who can take their place in a business environment and consumer society, but can they lead in politics and other cultural areas? Can they question the direction that society is being led?

All areas of knowledge are important to all human beings. We starve ourselves and our society if we do not provide the broadest education to everyone. If we fear that we cannot afford it, then we have succumbed to a bumpkin philosophy, smug in its ignorance of its ignorance, and bereft of our ideals, we will enter a cultural dark age.