FDR and Dirty Dancing: Porn-to-School Act (or, What I Learned While Studying the New Deal)
By Jonathan Bean on Jan 10, 2009 in American History, Bailouts, Education, Employment, Great Depression
With bailouts for banks and Big Business, the media is snickering at the porn industry’s plea for a federal bailout. Sales of pornographic DVDs have plummeted as Americans zipped up their wallets and spent money on other necessities. But the media refuses to feel the pain of sex workers. Apparently, “too big to fail” governs their thinking but there are industries “too small to matter.”
This is wrong. We can fashion a model for economic recovery from the porn plan. Moreover, we can do so in a way that draws upon the New Deal’s efforts in two areas:
1. NRA Code 348 (Burlesque Theatrical Industry):
The National Recovery Administration (NRA) was the first New Deal effort at recovery. The agency mandated that all industries draft “Codes of Fair Competition” to benefit business and labor. NRA codes—-all 700 of them—-corporatized the entire economy. Wage and price fixing was o.k. as the experimenters rid themselves of old superstitions that price fixing was somehow harmful to Mrs. Consumer. As long as everyone put in the “fix,” all would be well. The Supreme Court disagreed and ended the experiment in May 1935 (Schechter v. United States).
Yet there was an upside to the code-making. It made Americans realize how complex the economy had become by 1933. After all, there were codes for the Dog Food Industry (Code 450), Curled Hair Manufacturing and Horse Hair Dressing Industry (Code 427), Shoulder Pad Manufacturing (Code 262), and the Burlesque Theatrical Industry (Code 348). The latter limited burlesque dancers to four strip teases per evening. The goal was to spread the work, and it simply wasn’t fair that the pretty girls got to strip more than the other gals.
That leads me to a second New Deal program that might be combined with porn and dirty dancing:
2. Federal work study: began in the New Deal era. The National Youth Administration offered many college students “work study” to enhance their schools and finance their college education.
MODEST PROPOSAL:
An act to create jobs, stimulate the erotic industries, and make college affordable for Americans age 18-25. This “Porn-to-School Act” will build upon the success of the depression-era Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and National Youth Administration (NYA). The act also creates a cabinet-level position, “Secretary of Sex” (SOS) to work in conjunction with the Surgeon General in promoting safe sex practices in this essential industry.
RATIONALE: The erotic industries (pornographic film, pole dancing, legalized prostitution) recruit young people, age 18-25, who have not yet developed the skills to secure more lucrative employment. The Porn-to-School Act will increase turnover in the erotic industries and allow young women (and men) to get the college education they need to compete in our global economy. The influx of erotic work-students will bolster the higher education sector, which is seeking its own separate bailout. Far better to encourage workfare than welfare. Since the goal of the Old New Deal was to take young people out of the workforce, this will achieve that aim while increasing the human capital of those who could not otherwise attend college. This is the “New New Deal” at its best. After all, these young people are our future. And, as proponents of New Deal workfare note, unlike welfare “we get something for our money”—-a better-educated citizenry and young people who can proudly say “I worked my way through college!”
(Full disclosure: The author of this porn-to-school plan has no financial interest in any erotic industry. The above is purely in the public interest).




















The Nude Deal?
D. Saul Weiner | Jan 11, 2009 | Reply
Professor Bean has not only faced the facts squarely, but also faced them curvaceously, and he has told us nothing but the naked truth.
Robert Higgs | Jan 11, 2009 | Reply
Bob,
You were just busting out for that one, eh?
What grade do I get DD?
People forget that some of the best contemporary criticisms of the New Deal were wrapped in humor. “The devil hates to be mocked.”
In an upcoming post, I’ll have some of the better 1930s-era humor jabs at the New Deal, often placed on the back of business cards. lol
Jonathan Bean | Jan 11, 2009 | Reply
Public or pubic?
Independent Accountant | Jan 11, 2009 | Reply
Would there be any potential conflicts of interest in having two Clintons in the Cabinet?
M Sykuta | Jan 13, 2009 | Reply
I’m liking the thrust of this legislation.
CollegeYouth | Jan 13, 2009 | Reply
Individual liberty and personal responsibility that is what this nation was founded on. Pornography leads to captivity and moral irresponsibility. John Adams said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
It disgusts me when libertarians try to defend pornography citing individual liberty. Your argument is junk. Pornography is and leads to wickedness and wickedness leads to statism.
Here’s a freebie – wickedness doesn’t come from God and a man can’t serve two masters. Spin it how you want you can’t go around eternal truth.
J | Jan 14, 2009 | Reply
J, no one is defending pornography here. The post isn’t even about pornography.
As for your comment, even if pornography is as morally destructive to society as you believe, libertarians do not, as a matter of being libertarians, defend or promote pornography. What we believe is that, whatever the moral status of pornography, it is immoral and socially destructive to increase government power and throw people in prison over pornography. Surely not all moral problems should be addressed by government?
Anthony Gregory | Jan 15, 2009 | Reply
Not about porn, it’s about the idiocy of government planning and all the “wasn’t New Deal wonderful?” arguments bleating across the Beltway.
Jonathan Bean | Jan 15, 2009 | Reply
“Here’s a freebie – wickedness doesn’t come from God and a man can’t serve two masters. Spin it how you want you can’t go around eternal truth.”
In this you are quite correct. The power of the State rests on violence, robbery, and fraud. The power of God rests on mercy, love, and truth. I find it foolish to believe that an entity which is innately inimical to God can be just, righteous or holy. To be a libertarian is not to defend porn or drug abuse or any of these sins. To be a libertarian is to understand the proper use of coercion and we believe that violence is justified only as a reponse to the initiation of violence.
You have the weapon of the Gospel to preach against porn and drugs. Use that rather than the machine guns and prisons of the State.
C. Evans | Jan 16, 2009 | Reply