To the Editor:
Re “To Save Museums, Treat Them Like Highways,” by Laura Raicovich and Laura Hanna (Opinion guest essay, Feb. 11):
The writers have a clever idea to camouflage cultural funding by equating it with highway building and maintenance. I applaud their ingenuity: Fixing a leaky roof is less controversial than supporting the art on the walls or the movie screens below.
Executive directors of every arts organization waste vast amounts of time, energy, talent (and money!) raising money. During the pandemic, the government through various programs awarded generous amounts based on the budget of the nonprofit, saving many of us from disaster.
A similar approach, rather than the National Endowment for the Arts’ minuscule budget, apportioning funds according to highly subjective criteria, would make sense. Unfortunately, this does not resolve the underlying problem of why Americans put so little value on the arts.
Karen Cooper
New York
The writer was director of Film Forum from 1972 to 2023.
To the Editor:
Laura Raicovich and Laura Hanna wrote that we need to stop treating museums, theaters and galleries like sacred spaces and start treating them more like infrastructure.
Research that identifies museums as “third places” supports this idea. Museums are public spaces where people go to learn new things, to engage with one another, to explore ideas. Reports released in 2021 by both the American Alliance of Museums and the Institute of Museum and Library Services found that Americans trust museums and the information they share.
But like book bans that threaten libraries, another “third place,” museum funding that is guided by politics or power threatens access to art and ideas. Conscious or unconscious bias leads to distrust.
We all experience art, theater and books through personal lenses shaped by our backgrounds, families and education. Museums, like libraries, don’t tell us what to think. They provide access to information and invite us to make up our own minds.
Art allows us to reflect, feel, learn. It gives physical form to ideas. Like our community streets, museums build connections. Funding museums like infrastructure can help information flow.
Kathleen Sams
Richmond, Va.
The writer is a nonprofit grant writer.
To the Editor:
A number of years ago, my wife and I took a trip to visit England. While she attended various workshops, I toured a number of local museums. I was most impressed by the quality, presentation, content and scholarship on display.
I asked each curator how they accomplished such professional presentations. Each time the response was “We get funds from the national lottery!” Simple, right? It’s not rocket science, so why not in America?
Here’s the rub … politics! We do not have a national lottery that helps finance the arts, but the authors of the essay are on the right track.
Armen Hagopian
Brick, N.J.
The Wrong Approach to the U.S. Steel Deal
To the Editor:
Re “Biden Faces Push to Stop Steel Merger” (Business, Feb. 17):
Regarding the proposed purchase of U.S. Steel by Nippon Steel, it’s noted that both companies are behind on decarbonizing steel production. A ruling against this purchase is a dubious way to address the issue of greenhouse emissions in steel production.
The first consideration for decarbonizing steel production is cost. If the capital cost is high, and the return on investment is low, an investment in decarbonization may harm a company’s competitiveness. That discourages or delays the adoption of low-emission technologies.
This is why emissions in steelmaking would be best addressed with a price on fossil-based carbon, through federally enacted policy. That would encourage all steel companies to invest in low-emission production, which would be critical for maintaining competitiveness.
Putting a price on carbon, preferably using a carbon fee and dividend policy, will avoid conundrums such as this steel merger, where we try to fix an emissions problem with the wrong policy handle, in this case foreign investment policy. With a price on carbon there would be no climate concerns about this deal, an investment by a strong ally in a U.S. company needing capital and technology upgrades.
Wharton Sinkler
Sandwich, N.H.
The writer is head of New Hampshire’s Lakes Region Chapter of Citizens’ Climate Lobby.
Immigrants Can Help Revive Small-Town America
To the Editor:
Re “Another Political Failure on Immigration” (editorial, Feb. 3):
While Trumplicans stonewall on a bipartisan deal to help with the immigration problem, President Biden should offer a new deal on immigration for America and call it A Better Deal for Small-Town America.
Instead of strengthening the border and restricting asylum and legal immigration, Mr. Biden should offer Americans a chance to revive small-town America (the heart and soul of the country), solve the crisis at the border, and do the right thing for the millions seeking to work and find a better life in America.
Take a drive on two-lane roads across America and one will find thousands of small towns, ghost towns really, shells of what they used to be, struggling to keep a grocery store, a senior living center, a pharmacy or the one cafe open; plow the streets; fix the sidewalks; or mow the grass at the cemetery.
Establish a nationwide program to place immigrants in these communities. The communities would apply for a certain number of immigrants, and new and recent arrivals would commit to several years of work on a path to citizenship. The details would come. What’s lacking is the national commitment and the mandate.
It’s often been said, with little disagreement, that immigrants built America. Why not let the millions trying to come here rebuild and revive it?
John E. Colbert
Arroyo Seco, N.M.
The No-Victims Defense
To the Editor:
Re “What’s a Little Hyperbole Among Friends” (The Conversation, nytimes.com, Feb. 19):
Bret Stephens argues that the recent $355 million decision against Donald Trump is ridiculous because his lenders did not complain and it will give credence to Mr. Trump’s claim that the justice system is rigged. I agree.
The other night I drove through a red light and, despite no one except a camera seeing the incident and no one complaining, I was ticketed.
I think I will use Mr. Stephens’s defense in court. It should pass the straight-face test.
Alan Canner
Allentown, Pa.
A G.O.P. Shadow Government
To the Editor:
You have had several articles about Donald Trump’s interference with the vote for the bipartisan border bill. This action and reaction by the Republican Party make Mr. Trump a de facto president. He makes his wishes known, and then Republicans do what he wants even though he is just a citizen who is not in office.
Democrats want the government to work the way it was intended, with bipartisan compromise to achieve what is achievable. We need discussion, debate and solutions. Even if solutions fail, we should then try something else, and try, try again.
Republicans want a king, I guess — someone who just tells them what to do, so they look at the former president and ask for guidance, instead of behaving as adults with free will.
I don’t understand why anyone would ever hand over their own ability to think to someone else. The effect is that Mr. Trump and the G.O.P. are behaving as though they are a shadow government. He is a pretender king.
Tracy Highfill
Cave Creek, Ariz.
