from swing to bop. He attributes greatntalent to largely forgotten musiciansnlike trumpeters Bobby Moore and WillienNelson.nIn a recent issue, Down Beat magazinencarried an interview with a prominentnjazz artist and repertoire directornwho expounded on the need for musiciansnto accommodate the requirementsnand compromises of business if they arento succeed. Gillespie, whose lack of artisticncompromise is legendary, has receivednthat advice throughout his career,nand his response to those who urged himnto sell out in order to reach a widernaudience should be required reading fornthe young musicians being guided bynthat A & R man:nWe never carried big crowds becausenjazz is strictly an art form, and sonthere was always a division betweennjazz and what other people were doingnwho were not really participating in ancreative art form. Those other thingsnpeople were doing were not creative;nthey were pretty, manufactured meaninglessntinsel rolling off an assemblynline. DnThe American ProsceniumnDecline & FallnThere’s little more telling proof thatnwe are going through an epoch of declinenand, perhaps, downfall than thencowardly avoidance of responsibility forntheir errors by those who have not livednup to the expectations vested in them.nThe behavioral nihilism of our uppernclasses is one side of the coin; the activenrefusal to pay for one’s sins on the mainnpublic stage is another. Every eveningnthese days, we can see on television hownour president vehemently rejects any responsibilitynfor the disasters of his tenure.nMr. Kennedy fiercely dismisses thenvery idea of paying his dues, even thoughnthe public has decisively condemned hisninsouciance about his own past; therenare few in America now who doubt thatnhe is a lesser man precisely because henseems so unconcerned with and untormentednby the shadiness of the truthnabout himself. The day after the calamitousn”rescue attempt in Lran,” Americansncould see Defense Secretary HaroldnBrown and General David Jones, chairmannof the Joint Chiefs of Staff, behindna battery of microphones telling us aboutnthe glory of our grotesque debacle in thenIranian desert. “We can all be proudnof the brave men who undertook thisnmission,” Mr. Brown said. Yes, we can,nbut can we be proud of Mr. Brown andn^^mmmm^mm^mnChronicles of CttlturenGeneral Jones? Were they proud ofnthemselves.^ And if not, why did they notndescribe their humility.’ Why did theynnot admit their part, their responsibilitynin that dismal farce that made us a laughingstocknamong nations? Why do theynhide their blunders and their ineptitudenbehind the bodies of soldiers fallen innthe line of duty? And who will pay fornthose blunders when the Browns andnJoneses are still cashing their checksnfor being undignified bunglers? In anotherntime, ministers and generals whonwere responsible for blood spilled in vainnknew how to resign—if they had anynsense of honor—or they were forced tongo if they had not.nWhat will happen to us?nAndersonnCongressman John Anderson, then1980 independent candidate for president,nis from the town where this journalnmakes its home, so we should knownsomething about him which would benworthwhile to convey to the rest of thencountry. But we do not know very much.nWhat we do know is that by now, afternhis 20-odd years as the district’s representative,na considerable number ofnRockfordians believe him to be a Washington,nD.C. envoy to Rockford rathernnnthan vice versa. We also know thatnduring his last campaign for his congressionalnseat, which he barely survived,nhe spoke very little about his positions,nprograms or ideas, and instead lavishlyncastigated those who disagreed withnhim, calling them “small-minded peoplenwith gimlet eyes.” Finally, we remembernthat he kept accusing his opponent ofnhaving sold out to some unnamed, sinisternfinancial cabals—while Mr. Andersonnwas the recipient of funds fromnlarge corporations in both Illinois andnNew York City.nThe reason we know so little aboutnMr. Anderson is that, perhaps, there isnvery little in him which could add tonthe general knowledge about Americannpoliticians of the last quarter of ourncentury. They all want to be elected to,nor nominated for, public office, and thenvast majority of them consider the ideanof pleasing everybody—at the expensenof logic and rationality—as the bestnmeans to this end. Only the methods ofningratiating oneself into the popularnawareness vary—the political principlenremains the same. Mr. Anderson’snmethod is, first and foremost, based onnwooing the love of the liberal medianwhich, in turn, have a solid, intimatenrelationship with that territory ofnAmerica that stretches from MadisonnAvenue to suburbia to the large universities—wherenstudents are as eagerlyn”progressive” and “enlightened” as theynare susceptible to the media hype. Mr.nAnderson took aim at this segment ofnthe political audience, and it must bensaid that he succeeded superbly.nEarly this year, Mr. Anderson set outnto capture the Republican nomination,nand he suffered defeat after defeat innthe voting booths: the most painful,neven humiliating, one in his native Illinois.nAnd here, his love affair with thenmedia proved its nourishing strength,nits tenderly supportive quality: whenevernMr. Anderson lost. Time magazine,nthe Chicago Tribune and NBC commentatorsnannounced him to a perplexednAmerica as a moral winner. After Mr.nAnderson had ultimately been elimi-n