How do Republicans feel about libraries?

[fsghjvdhkjschks]

Are they an example of "socialism"?

[fsghjvdhkjschks]

(it's a serious question, btw)

[Starving Artist]

This Republican is fine with libraries. And with public schools (as a concept; not as an instrument of liberal indoctrination) and highways and roads. I would also be fine with universal health care if the government simply paid the premiums for everyone to have insurance and then stayed the hell out of things.

The type of socialism most conservatives in my experience object to is some form of income redistribution which takes from one segment of the populace and gives it to another, or where government seeks to bring everyone under its nanny state umbrella.

[Oakminster]

Not a Pubbie, but I am right-leaning. As I see it, the benefit of public libraries outweighs any concern about whether such is an example of socialism. Knowledge is a good thing. Sharing knowledge is a better thing.

[Suburban Plankton]

I'm a Republican, and the only problem I have with libraries is that they don't have enough money to stay open for what I consider to be reasonable hours. The free exchange of knowledge is a good thing.

[Hostile Dialect]

I've never met a Republican who disliked the general idea of libraries. Not that I have occasion to run into too many Republicans anymore, but San Diego is still as close to Republican as urban California gets except for Orange County, so it happens.

What's your motivation here?

[silenus]

Libraries are right there with roads, flood control, schools and all the other stuff that is considered "infrastructure." It is the fitting and proper function of government to build and maintain these things "for the public good." So it has been since Time began. I'm quite sure that most Republicans (or Democrats, for that matter) wished that libraries were so popular and supported that they good be run completely on private funding, but they realize that this is unlikely. Thus, the New York Public Library is born.

[Exy]

What's your motivation here?

What? It's a fair question. It's not obvious that Republicans would generally support libraries (and undoubtedly there are many who don't). I'm sure many Republican voters would be quite glad to see libraries be privately funded. Certainly many of them make no bones about opposition to other uses of government money to support "culture" -- things like public funding of art or of public broadcasting.

[Elyanna]

I'm a Republican, and the only problem I have with libraries is that they don't have enough money to stay open for what I consider to be reasonable hours. The free exchange of knowledge is a good thing.

Ditto that. They're mostly open during the hours I'm working. Sigh!

The republicans around me seem to be fine with libraries, judging by how much they use them.

[Sarahfeena]

The type of socialism most conservatives in my experience object to is some form of income redistribution which takes from one segment of the populace and gives it to another, or where government seeks to bring everyone under its nanny state umbrella.

This is pretty much what I was going to say. cultural institutions that serve everyone in the population are fine with me. I'm a little less thrilled with funding arts that are not accessible to the general pop, but as far as I'm concerned, if you choose not to take advantage of the library, that's your problem.

[Starving Artist]

What's your motivation here?

What? It's a fair question. It's not obvious that Republicans would generally support libraries (and undoubtedly there are many who don't). I'm sure many Republican voters would be quite glad to see libraries be privately funded. Certainly many of them make no bones about opposition to other uses of government money to support "culture" -- things like public funding of art or of public broadcasting.

Republicans don't object to funding "culture" if it's actually, you know, cultured. And apart from that, libraries generally don't do things that piss off conservatives, such as biting the hand that feeds them. Art and PBS both began to do so and generated considerable Republican/conservative ire as a result. Once upon a time in this country it went without saying that you couldn't put religious icons in a glass of piss and expect to have it see the light of day. And once upon a time PBS was pretty much apolitical. Politicians voting to fund these enterprises back then quite reasonably expected the status quo to remain the standard. Once art began to try to rub conservative noses in shit and call it art, and once PBS' programming began to show its liberal bias, that's when conservative/Republican opposition to them arose.

[fsghjvdhkjschks]

cultural institutions that serve everyone in the population are fine with me. I'm a little less thrilled with funding arts that are not accessible to the general pop, but as far as I'm concerned, if you choose not to take advantage of the library, that's your problem.

But they buy books that you might disagree with, and which may not be "accessible to the general pop[ulation]." Is this any different than funding Andres Serrano's Piss Christ? Or did you mean physically accessible?

Incidentally, Piss Christ is one of the most beautifully composed pictures I've ever seen.

[Sarahfeena]

cultural institutions that serve everyone in the population are fine with me. I'm a little less thrilled with funding arts that are not accessible to the general pop, but as far as I'm concerned, if you choose not to take advantage of the library, that's your problem.

But they buy books that you might disagree with, and which may not be "accessible to the general pop[ulation]." Is this any different than funding Andres Serrano's Piss Christ? Or did you mean physically accessible?

Incidentally, Piss Christ is one of the most beautifully composed pictures I've ever seen.

I meant more in the sense of physically accessible. For instance, if a large symphony orchestra is funded, that's still really only going to benefit the upper echelon of society who have the time, means, and inclination to go to the city for a concert. If the arts are going to be funded, I would much rather see it at a small local level...for instance, a small chamber strings concert AT the local library, that the public can get to easily and that won't cost them anything.

[Badtz Maru]

Opposition to public libraries is more of a Libertarian thing, not Republican.

[dangermom]

Yep, Libertarians tend to be more against libraries than Republicans. Me, I feel that libraries are a basic function of government, but then I'm a librarian. Anyway, have most people got any idea how incredibly cheap libraries are for taxpayers compared to most gov't institutions? You won't get a better deal anywhere.

[danceswithcats]

I meant more in the sense of physically accessible. For instance, if a large symphony orchestra is funded, that's still really only going to benefit the upper echelon of society who have the time, means, and inclination to go to the city for a concert. If the arts are going to be funded, I would much rather see it at a small local level...for instance, a small chamber strings concert AT the local library, that the public can get to easily and that won't cost them anything.

Even though I don't spend the $ to hear live performances of major orchestras, I do get to enjoy recordings of same when they're broadcast on one of the NPR affiliate classical stations. As such, I realize a fair return on the funding investment. For the record, I'm a registered Republican and believe public libraries are community assets worthy of support.

[OtakuLoki]

It's easy to begin with the general principle that libraries are good. For all the reasons mentioned in this thread.

It's the practice of how libraries use that funding that can be frustrating.

I support funding libraries, and I don't think that a library should be held hostage to some kind of community standards, either. Having said that, I'm in the position of thinking of libraries as a last resort for reading material. Part of that is probably outdated attitudes from my time growing up in a socially conservative (but politically liberal) small town in New England. I know interlibrary loan works much better, and faster, these days. I know that there's more effort made to balance the collections towards more than just NYT notable books.

But my emotional reactions when you mention libraries to me remains: a treasure trove for other people.

It doesn't make them useless, or a waste of money. Just not a benefit to me.

The problem seems to me to be that there are a lot of people on all sides of the political spectrum who react to public spending with, "What's in it for me?" When there are serious arguments about whether public education should only be funded by parents, I think that it's pretty obvious that libraries are going to be in trouble.

[vison]

Republicans don't object to funding "culture" if it's actually, you know, cultured.

By whose definition?

[danceswithcats]

Republicans don't object to funding "culture" if it's actually, you know, cultured.

By whose definition?

Therein lies the stickiest of wickets. I'm of the belief that everyone should be their own judge regarding obscenity, and what constitutes art. Once I apply my personal censorship to funding, that deprives others whose views differ from mine, which is unfair.