I did it! I actually read (and what is more, understood!) the article headed "A poet who rhymes", and I even happen to be in the process of reading Gioia's article "Can Poetry Matter?". (I tell you this only partly because I feel you might be interested--the primary purpose is to record for myself the small milestones on my rocky path to political savvy. I will become erudite! I deny failure!). The practical result of this reading is that I feel even more inclined to cheer for Dana Gioia--though never having read any of his poetry myself, I stepped right in line behind him the moment I read that he rejects today's mode of--I'm sorry to say it--inferior poetry. I'm not going to argue, of course, that my preference for Gioia isn't influenced by the fact that his opinions concur with mine. (Isn't that, after all, the true test of whether or not someone is qualified? This, at least, is something I do know about the practical aspect of politics--it isn't really the competence of a candidate that matters, only the number of people he can get to agree with him.)

However, my personal opinions aside, Gioia is quite convincing. His take on the whole subject is very interesting, if not illuminating. He maintains that poetry is rapidly becoming a subculture that is adverse to the interests of the general public. Most poets no longer write for a public, he says; they write for their peers--a trend that, in 1991 when his article came out, was already well-entrenched. He blames the change partly on a withdrawal from the once-traditional bohemian mindset characterized by a distrust of institutions. As poets found positions in universities and other academic organizations, they found that a closer relationship with institutions was more profitable than playing a lone hand. And when poets started writing exclusively for other poets, they lost the need to relate to a general public--thus begining a process that has gradually led to the cliquishness so widespread today.

Dana Gioia's article has sparked many debates, and no wonder. His grasp of the situation is impressive, and I, for one, come away with an increased respect for those poets who, like Mr. Gioia, have resisted the pull to conform "literary standards [to] institutional ones". This culture needs to be inundated with people who are willing to take a stand against mediocrity, and perhaps Mr. Gioia is just the person to lead that movement. While Mr. Gioia's article primarily explains why the poetic community has become a subculture, he doesn't stop with diagnosing the problem. He would like to see the poets of today make an effort to raise the bar--and who knows? Perhaps this next year will find the poetic community working its way back into a meaningful place in our mainstream culture.

I've decided to take a look at the latest issue of 'WORLD' today, and wouldn't you know it, you and I are in luck, because this issue happens to be a special issue. (I know this for sure because it says, right across the top where I can't miss it, 'Special Issue'. I'm assuming this is for the readers of WORLD who are liberals and need everything spelled out for them--I knew as soon as I picked it up, because they make all the special issues noticeably thicker).

The potholes in the road to political knowledge are many, as I am just discovering. For the first thing, I have to choose between some two dozen articles, beginning with the cover story called "A Warmer Chile: Compassionate conservatism takes root in South America's most hopeful nation". (Aha! You didn't know there was such a thing as a compassionate conservative, did you? You thought all conservatives were narrow-minded bigots. That's because you haven't kept up with WORLD recently. If you had, you'd know both that compassionate conservatives exist, and also why Chile is South America's "most hopeful nation", which is what I'm just about to find out.)

...And here we are, page 14. A page and a half into the article, and I've discovered some important reasons why Chile is called the "Great South American Hope", one of which is that Chileans are economically superior to their counterparts in most other major South American countries, Argentina and Brazil being mentioned in particular. Apparently the one is "living through financial chaos", while the other faces the prospect of increased poverty if the policies of newly elected Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (how's that for a name?) are implemented. Chile, on the other hand, is enjoying reduced taxes and economic progress, with poverty cut drastically from 45 to 21 percent. Another reason that Chile is considered to be a hopeful nation is the strong likelihood that it will become the newest beneficiary of the Bush administration's attempted expansion of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Last but not least, (I skipped a few reasons here to get to the most important), Chile is considered hopeful because of its willingness to pursue both religious and class reconciliation, something that the journalist feels is vital to the cultural health of a nation. With September 11, 2001 as a backdrop, Chile is portrayed as finally healing from its wounds of three decades before, when "economic and cultural tension" resulted in the deaths of thousands of Chileans. Today one of Santiago's main streets is called "Av. 11 de Septiembre", in remembrance of that day in 1973.

I have just discovered something else about this article. It isn't. It's actually a collection of articles grouped together under one name, which I think is pretty underhanded of WORLD. The reader is clearly being misled here--and just wait until he reaches page three, where he will suddenly discover that those sneaky journalists have slipped not one, not two, not even three, but nine more articles in on him. At this point he will, if at all like me, give up in disgust and look for something shorter; which means that either most of WORLD's readers are not as un-politically minded as I am, or WORLD is in need of a new strategy.

The article I would have read, had I discovered WORLD's duplicity earlier, is the one about Dana Gioia, the president's nominee for head of the National Endowment for the Arts. This one is titled "A Poet who Rhymes", and is already more interesting than the article about Chile, besides being shorter. Up until a short time ago I was one of those innocents under the happy delusion that all poets rhyme, and so perhaps this title would have seemed axiomatic; but I have since discovered that 'free verse' is now in fashion, leaving those of us who feel the allure of rhyme out in the cold. You know, I've made up my mind--I am going to read that article. There is something very attractive about a person who can be titled "He who rhymes". Mr. Gioia has also written an article for the Atlantic Monthly entitled "Can Poetry Matter?", and that is another article I'm going to search out. You may keep your issues of political importance--today at least. I'm casting my vote with poetry!

Are you up on the latest news? Have you read this weeks' headlines? Well if you have, don't tell me. I don't want to hear about them. I admit it! I'm not a political animal. I never was one. This happens to be my parents' fault--while my Dad has an opinion on anything and everything, not only including, but especially the political scene (it ranks right up there with sports), he did not pass it on to me. (Well, he passed on the opinionatedness, just not the knowledge of anything remotely political. Well, all right, so I know I'm a Republican. And I like George Bush. George W. Bush. The other one didn't have enough backbone.)

So can I be blamed for my parents inadvertant omission? Well, don't answer that one--I know I can be. I really could have taken the trouble to be interested earlier in life, I suppose. I could have skipped "Scaramouche" and read "National Review" instead. But what was a 10-year-old kid to do? Politics simply weren't interesting enough. Now, of course, I regret that I did not spend the extra time educating myself until I could spout Tom Daschle with the rest of them. Because now, you see, I realize how much in the minority I am--the whole intellectual scene teems with people who know their Ashcroft from their Rehnquist, and who would be delighted to give you their opinion on the Supreme Court. (I could give you an opinion on the Supreme Court. It wouldn't be complimentary.) Your typical intellectual can speak authoritatively on any subject faintly political. I, on the other hand, can only give you my clearly conservative opinion. This may not be all bad--at least I would take the trouble of researching every issue I was asked about, and so my political knowledge would slowly but surely grow. But methinks I already see the look on your face. I understand. Right-wingers, such as I, are not IN. Liberals are in (and you thought I didn't know that!); the more Left, the better! You never see journalists ranting at Liberals, do you? (Or do you?) Of course, it's old hat now to say that the media is biased. The media goes right on denying it, but it's really a lost cause, because--as anyone with more than half a brain knows--they're more liberal than the liberals. Such is life.


So now you know why this weblog will never be popular. But that's all right. Popularity may keep its own--I remain unabashedly and unreservedly Right-Wing! God save America, and may He give those journalists something to rant about!