Speaker 1: And we are back with another edition of the Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle, Senior Elections correspondent at the
Federalist and your experienced Shirpa on today's quest for Knowledge.
As always, you can email the show at radio at
the Federalist dot com, follow us on x at FDRLST,
make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and
of course to the premium version of our website as well.
Our guest today is Justin Shubo, President of the National
Civic Arts Society, a nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, DC
that promotes the classroom tradition in public arts and architecture.
Justin is also chairman of the US Commission of Fine Arts,
the esthetic review Board for Washington, appointed by President Trump.
He is reportedly one of two finalists four chairmen of
the National Endowment for the Arts. In the Trump administration.
He has gotten the endorsement of folks like Victor Davis
Hansen and others. We will talk more about that coming up,
but first and foremost, welcome Justin Shubo to this edition
of the Federalist Radio Hour. It's a pleasure having you.
Speaker 2: Yeah, thanks for having me. Just one small correction. I'm
the former chairman of the US Commission of Fine Arts.
By did remove me and others, But which is something
maybe we could talk about.
Speaker 3: That's exactly right. My apologies that.
Speaker 1: You were indeed, and then of course the Biden administration
took over and new sheriff in town sort of thing.
But I do want to start with the idea of
making architecture classical again. That was a piece that was
noted at the time when you were involved in drafting
Trump's revolutionary executive Order that reoriented federal architecture from how
would you describe I suppose many different eyes might describe
modernism back to the beautiful, classical and traditional design. Let's
begin there, because I think that really does speak to
your back round as you navigate through the arts and
public funding.
Speaker 2: Sure, so, as you mentioned at the end of his term,
President Trump issued this amazing revolutionary order. It emphasized that
our federal buildings need to be beautiful, uplifting the United
States and receive the general support of the ordinary person,
as opposed to say the members of the architectural establishment
or cultural elites.
Speaker 3: The order to look back.
Speaker 2: To the founding fathers Washington and Jefferson, who consciously chose
the classical style for our core buildings of government looking
back to you know, looking back, hearkening to ancient Greece
and Rome, these antecedents of democracy, and Jefferson talked about
the classical tradition as being time honored and timeless.
Speaker 3: Great statesmen throughout history.
Speaker 2: Have understood the importance of architecture for the body politic.
This goes at least as far back as Peracles in
the building of the Parthenon in Athens, demonstrating the supremacy.
Speaker 3: Of the city state.
Speaker 2: But later, you know, we have the founding Fathers, and later,
still in the twentieth century, Winston Churchill gave a speech
on the rebuilding of the Houses of Parliament, which have
been bombed in World War Two, and he famously said,
we shape our buildings, thereafter they shape us. And President
Trump this executive order recognized that since at least the
nineteen fifties, our federal buildings just became hideous, banal, and
quite simply unliked by the American people. And we got brutalism,
which I like to describe as a boot stamping on
your face for all of eternity, and in more recent years,
under the current design standards, we've been getting some avant
garde and crazy designs that look like alien spacecraft.
Speaker 3: And this executive.
Speaker 2: Order required that classical and traditional architecture be preferred for
federal buildings across the country, and those terms were defined
extremely broadly, so, for instance, classical included Art Deco. And
the order was that its most stringent regarding Washington, DC,
requiring that new federal buildings there be classical. After all,
Washington was meant to be a classical city. It is
understood to be a classical city by ordinary Americans, and
therefore we should continue that tradition.
Speaker 3: And one more important thing that was in the executive order.
Speaker 2: It required that there would be input from the general
public when design decisions were being made. So thus, for
the first time, there would be an element of democracy
in design.
Speaker 1: Brutalism who comes up with stuff like this?
Speaker 3: Well, Brutalism arose.
Speaker 2: Due to our architects seeking to expose the brutal, harsh
reality of life.
Speaker 3: They wanted to use materials like.
Speaker 2: Exposed reinforced concrete, sort of almost a metaphor for Cold
War bunkers, a kind.
Speaker 3: Of fearful approach toward life.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's a joke that some of these brutalist
buildings could.
Speaker 3: Only be torn down by a direct nuclear strike.
Speaker 2: And these buildings were never intended to be beautiful. The
architects had a different approach, seeking to achieve other things
through their buildings, you know, the strikingness of the form,
the honesty of materials. It's not as if they were
debating about what is beautiful or not. They just had
a completely different agenda, and we ended up with buildings
like the FBI headquarters, which I call the Ministry of Fear,
and we got numerous other brutalist buildings plaguing Washington, DC
and elsewhere around the country.
Speaker 1: So much for aspirational huh, I mean, you're right. I
mean this is a whole movement in architecture, and it
seems to be absolutely anathema to what Jefferson spoke of
the aspirational designs, the timeless designs of you know, classical architecture.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, these brutalist buildings give you a sense of
the federal government as being.
Speaker 3: The largest business on the face of the earth.
Speaker 2: You're getting faceless bureaucracy, nothing inspiring, nothing, ennobling buildings that
have been widely hated by Americans since they were originally constructed.
You know, you look at the headquarters for HUD Housing
in Urban Development in Washington, d C. Three different HUT
secretaries have said that building is like tenfold lords of Basement,
one of them Jack Kemper Republican, and two others Sean
Donovan and Juliam Castro, Democrats.
Speaker 3: So we're even getting bipartisan opposition to brutalism. And Castro himself.
Speaker 2: Said that the building looked like something from the Soviet Union.
Now that's not to say that certain architectural elites and
kind of esthetes have a fondness for brutalism nowadays, but
it's kind of like they're getting off on the sinister
aspect of these buildings, on the overwhelming sense of fear
one can get from them. They're getting off on it
in the same way that some people enjoy horror movies. Right,
the pleasure in feeling a negative emotion amazing.
Speaker 1: When somebody named Castro tells you, warns you that something
looks like a Soviet style building, maybe a better listen
to them. That's for sure, you have critics on that front.
I wanted to get your response to this. This was
a letter that I found that published in twenty twenty.
It was from planner and author Jeff Speck in twenty
twenty to Common Edge, a nonprofit organization dedicated to reconnecting
architecture and design with the public that it's meant to serve,
at least according to Common Edge website. It's the headline
doesn't mince any words. Justin Schubo's insane push for a
state sanctioned architectural style. I'll read you just a bit
of this. I'll let you respond by ghost writing and
executive order to make classicism the default style for federal architecture.
You and your organization have shown that your goal's Writing
this to you joan that your goal is no longer
diversity but domination. By accusing modernist Q to your big M,
meaning you capitalize modernist of wanting the same, you expose
the childish impulse behind trying to win the style wars.
You have gone from wanting a seat at the table
to trying to pull out everyone else's chair. Let's say
you of mister Speck's criticism.
Speaker 3: Well, there's a lot to say about that.
Speaker 2: First, I would note that the founding fathers did institute
an official style for federal buildings, namely classicism, and then
that tradition lasted for around one hundred and fifty years.
In fact, in nineteen oh one, the Treasury Department, which
at the time oversaw all federal buildings, explicitly made classicism
official and as if federal building suffered. In fact, there
was an efflorescence of beautiful classical design bose art works
that would include things like the US Supreme Court, which
was built in the nineteen thirties, the quote unquote modern era.
Speaker 3: So and there's a long.
Speaker 2: Tradition for there being official styles in government architecture, and
you also see this in other countries as well. At
the same time, the executive order that President Trump issued
did not ban on modernism.
Speaker 3: It simply said that there should.
Speaker 2: Be a preference for classical and traditional design, but most importantly,
that the buildings be beautiful, ennobling, inspiring, and appreciated.
Speaker 3: And beloved by the American people.
Speaker 2: So thus there was to be diversity across the country.
Like I said, there was no ban, but I think
that there was nothing wrong in encouraging the federal government
to build in the styles that are most popular with
the American people.
Speaker 3: My organization in.
Speaker 2: Twenty twenty did a survey by the Harris Pole that
found that seven twenty two percent of the people survey
preferred classical and traditional design for federal.
Speaker 3: Buildings in US courthouses.
Speaker 2: And there were widespread majorities across all demographic groups, gender, race,
socioeconomic and political party affiliation, with seventy three percent of
Republicans supporting tradition in seventy percent of Democrats. So there
is this widespread majority support for tradition, and I think
there's nothing wrong with the President instituting policy that reflects that.
Speaker 3: And I would also say to his claim that, you know.
Speaker 2: We classicists are seeking to dominate, well, in fact, the
modernists have been dominating at least since the nineteen sixties.
There have been barely any classical or traditional federal buildings
built since that time, and some of the rare counter
exceptions to that are in Alabama, thanks single handedly to
the efforts of Senator Shelby. So President Trump was overturning
that hegemony and returning buildings to the sort of style.
Speaker 3: That ordinary people love and appreciate.
Speaker 1: Do you find it curious that people who the same
people who despise the electoral college and often talk about
how the popular vote should dictate the outcome of elections
in this country don't seem to feel the same way
about the sort of surveys you mentioned where the vast
majority of Americans reject their particular view of how architecture
should be and prefer the classical designs.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean people like Jess Back.
Speaker 2: I mean, I don't think that they really care about
what the ordinary public thinks. I mean, they are the
architectural elites, and they think that they are the legislators
of mankind. They're the ones who wish to create a progressive,
new kind of society and can't stand the idea that
we could look back to our heritage, going all the
way back to the founders.
Speaker 4: Superman derives his power from the Yellow Sun. The Watch
Dout on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every day
Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the economy
and how it affects your wallet. DC politicians get their
power by giving handouts. In nineteen thirteen, the tax code
was four hundred pages long. Today it's seventy five thousand.
This is how politicians derive their power whether it's happening
in DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 3: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the Watch Dot on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast.
Speaker 1: And then let's talk a little bit about what happened afterward,
and I specifically talk about your involvement in leading these
different areas, in particular, what happened after Joe Biden took
office and when you were chairman of the US Commission
of Fine Arts again, that is the Aesthetic Review Board
for Washington. You were appointed by President elect Donald Trump
President at the time, Joe Biden comes in and says, no,
we're going to go in a different direction. What happened
on that front? What has happened on that front over
the last four years in Washington, DC?
Speaker 2: Sure, so, almost immediately after taking office, President Biden rescinded
Trump's executive order. He didn't give any explanation at the
time for why he did it, but architectural elites had
been lobbying him extremely hard. I mean, after all, there
was a lot of money at stake, not just this
idea component. And then you had cultural elites like the
New York Times editorial board opposing the order. So The
New York Times published an editorial titled What's so great
about Fake Roman Temples? The implication being that the US
Supreme Court, the Jefferson Memorial, the US Capital are all
fake Roman temples. I mean, obviously these are not two
thousand year old buildings. So there was the way of,
you know, let's see if I can pronounce the French,
you know, bien pensant opinion.
Speaker 3: Later, some months later, President Biden.
Speaker 2: Removed me and three other commissioners from the seven member
US Commission of Fine Arts. We had been appointed to
four year terms, and no president had ever removed the
commissioner in the commissions one hundred and ten year history,
let alone the Commission's chairman. Now, at that time, the
White House did explain to the press the president's rationale,
and the White House said that we were removed since
our strong support of classical architecture did not comport with
the President's values.
Speaker 1: That's interesting. So then from that point did he unleash
another round, you know, another agenda, promoting this progressivism, modernist
approach to architecture, particularly in the nation's capital.
Speaker 2: Well, under his administration, the agency agency responsible for federal buildings.
The General Services Administration continued business as usual. You know,
you continued to get the domination of modernism with very
few classical or traditional buildings approved or built. So, you know,
Trump wanted to change everything and Biden wished to keep
it the way it was.
Speaker 1: That's progressivism, huh. Keeping everything the way it was for
the sake of politics. I think that's shining through and
everything over the last four years. I want to talk
to you about, you know, where you hope to be
in the coming years. Our guest today is Justin Schubo,
as president of the National Civic Arts Society, a nonprofit
organization headquartered in Washington, d C. That promotes the classical
tradition in public art and architecture. He's also a finalist
for Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts in
the upcoming Trump administration. There was an interesting column that
was written by John A. Bird for Wall Street to
Journal this just after the election at the end of November.
John is the president of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, and
the headline was Trump can restore honor to American art.
Federal arts and cultural organizations have spent decades funneling taxpayer
dollars into projects ranging from the profane to the inane.
And one need only think.
Speaker 5: About about Robert Maplethorpe and the creator of the audaciously
awful piss Christ if I can mention that from the
nineteen eighties.
Speaker 1: But there are myriad examples of the profane to the
inane over the last couple of decades in this country
as well. John writes in the piece, there are plenty
of other candidates better suited to restore honor to federal
arts and culture agencies. Justin Schubo, president of the National
Civic Arts Society, served on the US Commission of Fine
Arts during mister Trump's first term before becoming chairman in
twenty twenty one. He also notes that you played a
critical role in the President's classical architecture initiative and influenced
the designs of the Dwight Eisenhower in World War One memorials.
He cites you specifically as a candidate who would indeed
be better suited than what we've seen over the last
several years, including I might add, in the Trump administration.
As John points out in his column, I guess the
question is it's understandable, but why do you seek this position.
Speaker 2: Well, I don't want to be presumptuous, but it would
be a true honor to serve the administration.
Speaker 3: It's important to understand.
Speaker 2: That the national and dominant for the arts is the
large just funder of arts and arts education in the country.
Its annual budget is two hundred and ten million dollars,
and I think for a long time Republicans have wanted
to eliminate the agency altogether. You know, you mentioned these
controversial pieces of art from the nineteen eighties that Republicans
have never forgotten, but I think a bigger issue in
the later decades has been that people do not see
the NEA as producing worthy art. I mean, my vision
for the NEA comes from Dana Joya, the talented poet
and translator, who said, a.
Speaker 3: Great nation deserves great art.
Speaker 2: In my view, the highest art is that which is beautiful, profound,
or moving, and when I go to a contemporary art museum,
that is not what I see. Whatsoever. What this country
needs is a cultural renewal, a renaissance, and I would
like to think that the NEA could play a role
in that.
Speaker 1: We see over the years. You know, as you mentioned
the amount of money that has been spent on this
form of art. Maybe not inspirational to a lot of folks,
aspirational to a lot of folks, but the money keeps coming.
We're talking about for the key agencies that fund these programs.
We're talking about over a billion dollars of taxpayer money.
And you brought it up. You know, the question is
why do we continue to fund these agencies to begin with?
And I asked that in context of you know, the
Department of Government Efficiency that is about to be run
by you know, Elon Musk and Vi Vicswami. They're looking
at ways to cut the budget, and as you mentioned,
there are a lot of conservatives who say, well, why
do we need these funding organizations at uh, you know,
for at the taxpayer's expense to begin with?
Speaker 2: Well, I turned to what Theodore Roosevelt said. He was
greatly interested in the importance of art and architecture for
the country, and he said, a national greatness that is
divorced from artistic production is but a one sided, malformed greatness.
Speaker 3: And I think when the NEA.
Speaker 2: Was created in nineteen sixty five, there was this idea
that the federal government could use its money and power
to improve and sustain the arts in this country, So
I think as a highly noble goal.
Speaker 3: You know, two hundred and ten million dollars is real.
Speaker 2: Money, though you know, you could say on the other side, well,
it's not that much per capita in the United States,
and you know, you look to Europe and Europe spends
far more per citizen than we do on the patronage
of the arts. But if the NEA could help create
a cultural renaissance, then I think the money is absolutely
well spent. I mean, one of the things that I
would like to do is to create an initiative that
celebrates and fosters the grand tradition of American civic architecture,
going back to the founders, even farther back than the
Capitol in the White House, to the Virginia Capital designed
by Thomas Jefferson, which is inspired by an ancient Roman temple,
all the way continuing up to the twentieth century, with
buildings like the original Penn Station, which was this awe
inspiring temple for the people, also inspired by ancient Roman architecture.
Speaker 3: So there is.
Speaker 2: Greatness that our country can achieve, and architecture, I think
is a very interesting thing for the NEA to take
a look at since it cuts across the divide between
high culture and common culture. It's high culture in that, yes,
architects are incredibly talented and studied individuals who understand all
sorts of practices and principles.
Speaker 3: But at the same.
Speaker 2: Time, the audience for our public buildings is the ordinary
American and so thus I think it could be very
useful for the NEA to take a look at that.
Speaker 1: As chairman of the NEA, how do you go about
resisting the name and profane as noted in the Wall
Street Journal column. I mean, there's obviously there has been
over the years a great deal of pressure to let
art be art for art's sake, and you know, whatever
means these these folks like to assign and then we
get some things where you know, the vast majority of
Americans are shaking their heads saying I paid for that.
Speaker 2: Why Well, the ANYA chairman helps select the members of
these panels that review grant applications.
Speaker 3: So you know, any competition is only.
Speaker 2: As good as the jury, and the ANYA chairman can
play a role there.
Speaker 3: But at the very end of the process, the ANYA
chairman is.
Speaker 2: The one who either approves or disapproves a particular grant,
so that gives the chairman a lot of power to
make sure that the American people are not funding are
that barely any of them like or appreciate.
Speaker 1: You mentioned the architectural side of things. Obviously the NEA
is involved in wide facets of the world of esthetics
and art. What else would you like to see inside
the NEA as it approaches the grant funding two hundred
and ten million dollars as you mentioned.
Speaker 3: Sure so.
Speaker 2: Dana Joya, who I previously mentioned, was nyhair under George W.
Speaker 3: Bush, and he.
Speaker 2: Started this wonderful initiative called the Big Read to encourage
Americans to read in their communities together at the same
time some of the great classics of our literature. And
at the time there were four books that were options.
Speaker 3: For people to read, one of them being.
Speaker 2: Fahrenheit four fifty one another one Their Eyes Were Wide
God by.
Speaker 3: Zora o' neil Hurston.
Speaker 2: But starting in the Obama administration, the book selections became
much more focused on contemporary trendy books with an emphasis
on identity politics, and.
Speaker 3: That has continued to this day.
Speaker 2: I would like to return the Big Read to its
original state, focusing on classics that have stood the test
of time.
Speaker 1: That's a very good point because literature, obviously in so
many facets of art have been so tied to the
DEI diversity, equity and inclusion forces in America over the
last decade decade and a half or so. What is
your stance on DEI in in arts and funding of
the arts and where do you think we need to
go from that vantage point?
Speaker 3: Well, DEI is plagued.
Speaker 2: Where the grants approved by the NEA have been plagued
by DEI. I mean you can just do a search
for certain key terms in the in the any Grand
database and there are dozens and dozens of DEI grants
and in fact then A has a general policy.
Speaker 3: For DEI and equity in the grants process.
Speaker 2: I think, by contrast, that the grants should be awarded
solely according to artistic merit artistic excellence.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it seems like excellencerit meritocracy has been driven out
of this process again for a number of years. How
do you get back to that given that everything in
this system, or much in this system seems to be
so immersed in diversity, equity, inclusion, identity politics agenda.
Speaker 2: Well, you set up the whole system so that DEI
is irrelevant that the panels reviewing the grants focused on
artistic merit artistic excellence. I think those are the actual
terms used in the NEA's authorizing legislation. So we make
this a meritocracy and you know, may the best people
and organizations win.
Speaker 1: It's a good point, But how do you go up
against you know, the usual suspects on the left and
the accomplice media. They've already been painting the whole idea
of where you see in states like Florida, Iowa comes
to mind, and several others where they've said, no, we're
not going to have child porn in our k through
twelve libraries. That's not banning books. That's understanding that there's
age appropriate content in that we don't want stories about
dominatrixes and drag queens or drag queens coming to our
first grade library sessions. I mean, how do you get
that kind of stuff out while, you know, going up
against the whole narrative. Oh, they're just banning books, that's
all it is. They're just book banners.
Speaker 2: Well, the NEA can only control so much. The chairman
overseas the grants. It's not as if the NEA can
go out across the country and scrub away everything. Sure,
that's gone wrong, But I think it's fair to say
that there is a vibe shift in this country going
on regarding DEI. You know, looking at all the corporations
that are eliminating DEI programs. Now, admittedly, the arts world,
its politics are not just on the left, but you know,
it can be on the on the far left. But
the NEA has its area of control, and it ought
to be a meritocracy.
Speaker 1: Then when we say the NEA, the National Endowment for
the Arts, and we've kind of talked about it, it
is in need of restoration. It is in need of
restoring its reputation and value to the American taxpayer. That
is a real problem, the perception of the American taxpayer,
and I think in many ways rightly so is the
NEA has been so immersed in leftist, sometimes Marxist politics
that it's not worth salvaging. How do you go up
against that kind of reputation.
Speaker 2: Well, I think one of the agendas of this coming
administration is make America beautiful again. There is a kind
of optimism that we're seeing, and I think we should
be optimistic about American culture.
Speaker 3: Instead of saying, oh, the NEA.
Speaker 2: Is hopeless, let's get rid of it. I think we
can reorient it. I mean people used to say, for instance,
that federal architecture was hopeless. Years ago, when my organization
was getting off the ground, I met with a leading
classic architect talking about armbit to change the direction of
federal design, and he said, Oh, that's completely hopeless. That's
going to be like trying to turn around an aircraft carrier.
But we proved him wrong. We proved him wrong. President
Trump had the vision and was willing to spend the
political capital to do it. And so why can't we
see similar positive results from the cultural agencies such as
the National Endowment for the Arts.
Speaker 1: It's a good point, justin you're obviously very passionate about this.
I don't think we may have in this conversation if
you weren't passionate about this, I don't think you're you're you.
You would have chosen the path that you have chosen
without that passion. Where where did all of this begin
for you? How? How what shaped you in terms of
your passion for uh, you know, for architecture, classical design,
art in general.
Speaker 2: Well, I think my interest when I was in graduate school.
I was studying philosophy, and I came to read people
like Roger Scrutin, the great conservative British philosopher. People know
him for his work in political philosophy, but he also
wrote extensively on architecture.
Speaker 3: And I read him and others, and I came.
Speaker 2: To see how architecture is the mirror in which a
civilization sees itself, and buildings are unlike a painting in
a museum or a sculpture in someone's house. They are
inherently public, they are forced upon us, and so therefore
they are small p political, unlike all of the other arts.
Speaker 3: And I had long.
Speaker 2: Time believed that our world had become much uglier after
World War Two, when we got the advent of modernism,
I mean modernism began after World Were One in Europe,
when all these artists and architects felt like their civilization
had self destructed, they were demortalized, and they wished to
create a new world based.
Speaker 3: On a new social order.
Speaker 2: And that has been embodied in our architecture or far
too long, and in recent years we're even getting nihilistic architecture.
You'll have architects openly saying that they're nihilists. By contrast,
great buildings ought to make us feel at home in
the world. They should uplift us, They should give us
a sense of the existence of the true, the beautiful,
and the good. So there is this philosophical component to
architecture that is important on Buildings are essential whether or
not people are consciously thinking about them. They're influencing how
we think and feel all the time.
Speaker 1: It seems to me it gets back to a philosophical struggle.
For you, what is at the core of all that
you've accomplished, what you do, and what you would like
to do, And that is there is a movement in
America and the world that sees everything as dark and
evil and brutal, as we mentioned before, and it forsakes
the beauty that is inherent in the world. That's what
it seems like to me. Do you define it that
way in terms of how you approach your work and
how you would approach your work as chairman at NEA.
Speaker 3: Yes, absolutely.
Speaker 2: And President Trump has the right vision, he said at
Seapack in twenty twenty three. We will get rid of
bad and ugly buildings and build in the magnificent classical
style of Western civilization. We should be proud of who
we are, proud of our culture, and we need art
and architecture that enhances America's greatness, enhances our prestige.
Speaker 1: No doubt about it. And these are times more than
ever I think we're the country and its citizens are
crying out for that beauty, a return to it, and
the sense of hope that was involved in it as well.
Final question on that front, it's difficult to do all
of this under the context of the far left in
this country, which really, let's face it, is running Democrat
politics in America and the people in corporate media who
keep painting Donald Trump as the darkest of tyrants, you know,
equating him to Adolf Hitler and fascist, and that is
their worldview. They lost on that worldview. By the way,
Americans did not buy that. They certainly looked at what
was happening with the Democrat Party, with the Biden administration
going after targeting their political number one political opponent, with
a lawfare, with a politically weaponized justice Department, and they
see the world differently the majority of voters in this country.
But you will have to go up against that constant
push from the left in this country, which still while
it has lost a good deal of its power in
the last election, still will make plenty of trouble, that's
for sure.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I am optimistic.
Speaker 2: I mean when it came to architecture, for instance, President
Trump took on the entire architectural establishment and he won.
I think that big things can happen in the world
of arts as well. We need to be optimistic. There
is hope. There have been revivals and renaissances in the
past when it comes to culture, and there's every reason
for thinking that one can occur thanks to the new administration.
Speaker 1: Very good, Well, I very much enjoyed our conversation, very
much appreciate your time. I wish you the very best
of luck moving forward and certainly in the coming weeks
as you move through this process.
Speaker 3: Well, thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 1: Absolutely thanks again to my guest today, justin Shuba, president
of the National Civic Arts Society, candidate for Chair of
the National Endowment for the Arts. You've been listening to
another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle,
senior elections correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be back soon
with more. Until then, stay lovers, of freedom. I'm anxious
for the frame.
Speaker 2: I heard the fame, voice the reason, and then it
faded away.
Speaker 3: M hm.