The President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities (PCAH) has played a significant role in American government since its establishment by President Reagan in 1982. Although not part of the President’s Cabinet, the PCAH serves as an advisory body directly appointed by the president to support and promote arts and humanities across the nation. Despite its non-partisan mission, the PCAH has not been immune to political turmoil. In 2017, following President Trump’s controversial comments on the Charlottesville violence, the PCAH members resigned en masse, leading to the committee’s temporary disbandment. President Biden reinstated the PCAH in 2022, emphasizing its importance in fostering civic engagement, social cohesion, and equity through the arts and humanities. This article features an interview with current PCAH members, including National Endowment for the Humanities Chair Shelly C. Lowe, Oscar- and Tony-award winner and PCAH Co-Chair Bruce Cohen, and PCAH member and interdisciplinary artist Amanda Phingbodhipakkiya. The discussion highlights their personal and professional journeys within the arts and humanities, underscoring the profound impact of cultural experiences on their lives. They advocate for continued government support, citing the arts and humanities as essential for a functioning democracy.

In the literature on the determinants of party unity, one pathway has remained largely neglected: division of labour. Given their workload, members of parliament (MPs) are only thoroughly concerned with a subset of policies. We argue that this results in MPs casting fewer dissenting votes on matters within their area of specialization since they have had the opportunity to shape the party line there. Regression analyses using data for the German Bundestag support this hypothesis, including four important refinements: Not only the current but also past membership in the responsible committee reduces an MP’s defection probability. Additionally, this pattern is more pronounced for policy spokespersons and for less consequential, i.e., non-legislative votes as well as for issues less salient to the MP’s party. The results have implications for our understanding of MPs’ legislative behaviour, the functioning of parliaments as institutions and for the relationship between parties, MPs and voters.