I actually agree with Chait [about abolishing the NEA], and I'd throw in a few other items, like NPR and Amtrak, things that the free market is capable of supporting perfectly well. (Did you know, for example, that Congress continues to support long-haul Amtrak routes largely because Amtrak provides jobs in their districts? And does anyone think that market failures have produced a shortage of radio and TV channels in this country?)

Read the comments for the various arguments for why Kevin is wrong.

For my part, I'll just point out that without the support of the NEA and similar state agencies, like NYSCA here in New York, there would be no theatre in this country except overblown Broadway musicals, tours of overblown Broadway musicals, two character plays featuring over the hill Hollywood stars, and amateur productions. In fact, for a sense of what theatre in America would look like if left to market forces, take a good look at what's on Broadway, and subtract everything there that's produced by or originated at a not-for-profit theatre like the Roundabout or Manhattan Theatre Club. What's left are the big musicals, the one-person shows, and the two-handers.

Now, perhaps Kevin doesn't like good theatre, or the arts in general, hates trains and can't stand NPR (actually, I'm not so fond of it either), and sees no value in keeping them in our cultural mix. If so, his remark makes perfect sense. But somehow I doubt that. I think he's laboring under the extraordinary delusion that these things can survive in a market system without state support, but he's clearly wrong.

There has never yet in human history been a society in which the arts have prospered without some kind of subsidy, either from the state or from wealthy patrons.

That's a basic fact about cultural history, and a guy like Kevin Drum should know that.