46 /CHRONICLESnInternational Studies at the local “university”n(on the level of a bad communityncollege) organized an InternationalnFestival of Popular Theatre. Not, ofncourse, what you and I mean by “popular,”nbut collectively written playsnabout “social issues,” i.e., propagandandramas that are supposed to be of, by,nand for the people, but are really fornhive members. A Sandinista group wasnfeatured, and the heady word “populist”nwas freely imbibed. The realnachievement, however, consisted ofnlengthy, admiring programs about thenfestival broadcast locally twice, regionallynonce, and nationally once, alwaysnon the CBC, the government radionstation which is a hive propagandanorgan. There was no criticism of thenfestival from any quarter. To managenthe diffusion and ready acceptance ofnsuch poison on that scale is quite a feat,nand it took an American to do it.nWith one part of themselves, genteelnCanadians continue, as of yore, tonregard themselves as wise owls from annolder world, sent here to restrain thencallow, violent savages to the south.nThe current version is that Canada’snrole is to reduce the tension betweennthe “two superpowers” (always a giveawaynphrase) by damping down Americann”aggressiveness.” But another,ndeeper voice relentlessly whispers intonthe genteel ear that Canadians—nterminally dull, utterly lacking any heroesnor even figures of distinction, ornthe art to sing their stories, in fact ancountry without any art of any sort—nare inferior.nA couple of years ago I heard one ofnthe comrades at the CBC interviewnPauline Kael, and I was amazed by thenbreathlessly servile adoration from ansource noted for holding Americans inncontempt, until I remembered that thengenteel cotton to America-haters anywherenand kowtow to those Stateside,nin keeping with their feeling of inferioritynand the derivative character ofntheir culture.nAmericans rarely think much aboutnCanada. When they do, their thoughtsnare generally benevolent, and it is notnuncommon for them to assume, quiteninnocently, that one day Canada willnjoin the U.S. They had better thinknagain: for the U.S. to acquire millionsnof welfare bums, including a few thousandnNew Yorker readers, would benone hell of a deal.n]igs Gardner writes from Nova Scotia.nLetter From thenLower Rightnby John Shelton ReednBringing It HomenWhen I wrote about Jesse Jackson recently,nI said his politics were those of anblack Jim Hightower, meaning that if henwere white his politics would guaranteenhim obscurity. But if it’s a flaming leftienyou want, Hightower is actually a muchnmore interesting proposition than Jackson.nYou’re unlikely ever to get thenchance to vote for him unless you live innTexas, where he’s Commissioner ofnAgriculture, but you might enjoy knowingnhe’s around.nHe’s an old-fashioned, traditionalnTexas populist, for better and for worse.nYou just have to ignore his puerilensoak-the-rich rhetoric. And I suspect thenonly reason he doesn’t go in for jejunenThird Worldism is that state agriculturencommissioners don’t get asked theirnforeign-policy views much. But he’s notnjust another pretty face.nI started out skeptical aboutnHightower. For one thing, he’s thendarling of some of our local trust-fundnMarxists, who find his ritualisticnReagan-bashing congenial and hisnpersonality—well, just deliciously authentic.nSo when he spoke in our town anwhile back and these folks asked if I wasngoing to hear him, I allowed that personallynI wouldn’t cross the street tonhear the paranoid ravings of somendown-home redistributionist.nSo I didn’t go. But now a recentnissue of Southern Changes, the magazinenof the Southern Regional Council,nmakes me wish I had. It contains annarticle — obviously once a speech—bynHightower. And, Lord, listen to thenman. To be sure, you’ll hear an occasionalnJacksonism, like: “Our programsnwill work if we base the nation’s growthnnot on the Rockefellers, but on thennnlittle fellers.” But when Hightowernturns to policy, he calls for “developingnour own enterprises” and “localizingnour economy.” He comes on, in short,nlike the Nashville Agrarians, authors ofnTil Take My Stand.nHe invites us to ponder the story ofnthe Texas watermelon farmers whonwere losing 60 percent of their crop fornlack of a market. While the Krogernsupermarket chain was importing melonsnfrom Florida, Texas melons werenrotting in the field. “What little theyndid sell was out of a pickup truck on thenside of the road, getting a penny anpound for it.” A marketing co-op nownmeans they sell Kroger half a millionnpounds of watermelon — at seven andna quarter cents a pound. Melon farmers’nincome has more than doubled,nand consumers, instead of payingn$3.50 for Florida melons, “got thatnsweet Walker County melon forn$1.98.”nHightower has other examples ofnsuccessful agricultural co-ops. LowincomenMexican-American farmers innthe Rio Grande Valley, for instance,nnow sell squash and peppers directly tonthe Pathmark chain for four times asnmuch as they used to get from wholesalers.nThis isn’t charity, or affirmativenaction: Pathmark sets the specificationsnfor quality and still buys cheaper than itnused to.nHightower claims that somethingncalled the Mexico-Texas ExchangenCommission has successfully organizednvarious international trade projectsnand joint ventures, and that similar tiesnare being forged with Israel and Italy.n”We’re finding markets around thenworld directly from our state.” Henacknowledges that Texas has somenthings going for it, including “an awfullyngood-looking agriculture commissioner.”nBut he insists that other statesncan do it, too, individually or on anregional basis. “There’s no reason thenSouth and individual states can’t formntheir own foreign relations. You don’tnhave to go through the State Departmentnfor this.”nFrom time out of mind. Southernnagricultural reformers have called forndiversification, and Hightower is a traditionalistnin that respect at least. Whynhas his department been encouragingnblueberry production? Because a smallnfarmer “can make a living on fortynacres of blueberries in our state,” that’sn