A One and A Two ...

Perhaps because of the current discussion about Christopher Columbus' legacy, I have found myself thinking about a flat world. And whenever I think about a flat world, I think of North Dakota. And, of course, whenever I think of "The Peace Garden State," I remember the wealth of culture it offers. So as the leaves fall and the snow prepares to do the same, I find my mind wandering and wondering about the great icon of popular culture from North Dakota: Lawrence Welk.

A One and A Two ...

Many who know me are surprised by my interest in and enjoyment of Lawrence Welk and his ensemble. Growing up I watched weekly as the horns, singers, dancers, and conductor choreographed an image as much as a show, never too sure whether I liked the subtle messages of the performances, but aware that a lot of people deeply enjoyed the show. It made them feel good. Whether my tastes caused me to prefer Wolfman Jack (The Midnight Special) or Dick Clark or Soul Train did not much matter, I pretty consistently watched the Bubble Man.

And now Lawrence Welk is back in the public eye. Not only because of the continuing popularity of his show -- which by the way is the most popular PBS program currently -- but also because of a debate about federal aid to rehab Larry's boyhood sod home as a tribute to German-Russian settlers. Welk's boyhood home would become a museum of sorts.

This provides a dilemma for social justice-type people. We are keenly aware of the tremendous needs of so many people who are considered by those in power to be expendable. Many people are hungry or imprisoned or homeless or without health care, and appropriation battles on their behalf on Capitol Hill are being lost as the government searches for funds to bail out America's banking industry. And as people who recognize the needs, and in many cases as the very providers of services to the needy, we do need to raise questions about redistributing resources in a more equitable manner.

But we also must recognize the value of people's culture, especially the culture of the folks -- folk culture. Working to ensure the continuation of subcultures is a way to show appreciation and respect. It recognizes the humanity and complexity of those we often think of as victims. Victims they may be, but they have not allowed their adversity to suppress the creative spirit within their community, and those of us who seek "solidarity" with the victimized need to recognize that. Maintenance of institutions is a way of showing respect. Acceptance of culture can be as important as appropriation of funds.

Too often the elite of America look down upon the people who support institutions of mass culture such as All-Star Wrestling, tractor pulls at the county fair, or Lawrence Welk's dance band. These elites bring a superior sense to their decision as to what should "go" as culture. Those who don't particularly want to help fund the reconstruction of Larry's shack in Strasburg need to stop for a second to examine their own motivations and make sure it's not just a matter of taste. There may, in fact, be other very good reasons not to allocate the money, but a bit of suspicion of intent may be warranted.

Perhaps I'm just feeling guilty for all the Lawrence Welk jokes I've told. (I often used to watch the show just to see Larry plug one of his sponsors: As he said the tag-line for Dodge -- "Put a Dodge in Your Garage" -- in his heavy German-Russian brogue, it would always come out, "Put a Dotch in Your Crotch.")

If we assume that the public has some ethical and financial obligation to sustain the popular culture because of its benefits for some subcultures and for the society at large, then we must also look at our moral responsibilities, our obligations, and our rights to have some control over just which aspects of popular culture are funded.

We then walk right into the face of the great National Endowment for the Arts debate on public funding of the arts. What is censorship and what is community control? Who decides what is or isn't offensive? When is it important to support an image that raises important issues, even if it is not necessarily popular?

Space precludes answering all these questions here. But the inclusion of minority culture voices and projects whenever these questions come up must be one criterion. Sometimes we must support projects that may not thrill us personally because of a commitment that our society is better off when subcultures are given prominence.

And as for Larry, private funds have rehabilitated his home. More than 5,000 tourists visited the museum this summer. The North Dakota Farmers Home Administration has approved the allocation of funds for maintenance. The federal FmHA is considering this request.

Now, I'll admit that Welk doesn't generate the same enthusiast response as Bono and U2, singing with enough angst to share. He is more comparable to Mister Rogers of children's television fame, as writer Steven Stark aptly stated recently in The Washington Post. It's true, Mister Rogers -- like Mr. Welk -- is easy to parody. But when you observe children watching his show, you can easily recognize Rogers' brilliance. Mr. Welk has entirely the same appeal.

So let's see those champagne bubbles bursting over a reconstructed and maintained home. He deserves it after all the homes he's enriched over the years.

Wouldn't that be "wunnerful."

Au revoir, auf Wiedersehen, and good night! Oh, and stay tuned!

Bob Hulteen was Under Review editor of Sojourners when this article appeared.