Nothing in a democracy happens because the majority of constituents want it to happen. The majority of constituents don't know or care enough to explicitly agree with any particular novel-and-domain-specific policy.

Instead, things happen in a democracy because vocal minorities of constituents push for it, and nobody in the rest of the constituency cares enough to push in the opposite direction.

If a policy turns out to be disliked by the majority, the expectation is that the policy will rile up another vocal minority enough that they'll be inspired to come along and advocate to change things back in the other direction. If no vocal counter-minority ever forms, the policy stays.

To be clear, this isn't a corruption of the democratic process; rather, this is what it means to have a decision be made "democratically."

See also: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1039854944

I am well aware of this. I'm responding to the notion that support of institutions like the Kennedy Center has any correspondence to the desires of anything beyond an extreme minority of the population. You're lecturing the wrong person.

Most programs aren't supported by most people. However, the bundle of programs is. That's compromise.