In the preface to his new and fascinating memoir of Nancy Hanks,[1] the much-admired second chairman (1969-77) of the National Endowment for the Arts, Michael Straight, her deputy during her years in office, makes a proud claim for their joint place in the history of our Republic: “We had worked together,” he writes, “to create a democratic culture at a high level in America.” While one would hardly want to claim felicity for the use of the word “create” in a context of bureaucratic policy making, fulfilling the role of cultural leadership on behalf of a proud nation is a goal neither trivial nor ignoble. To render productive the inevitable tension between a mass democracy flexible enough to accommodate the pressures of necessary change and a high culture based upon enduring standards of content and form is a task only the greatest leaders can accomplish.
It can hardly be said that the ideal of cultural leadership is as yet widely accepted in this country. Whenever the subject is raised, from the political and social Left are heard accusations of imperialist hegemony and social exploitation; from the Right come well-founded fears of official contumely and the stifling of individualism. In the sadly half-educated and apathetic center of American life, the ideal of leadership in art and learning bids fair to become at best the advocacy of genteel diversions and at worst the provision of fodder for the voracious maw of a debased popular culture.
And yet the
