Well, the old adage applies: the personal is political, and the selection of poetry is political too, even when it's simply (or especially!) a case of who edits an anthology; personal bias inevitably comes into play. I only have to look at the anthologies sitting on my shelves...
Quincy, you raise a good point about Dana. I'm not sure I've seen any discussion about his tenure. But I probably don't read widely enough.
I AM an avid reader of
The Nation by the way (and have written for it periodically)--to go back to your point about poetry and "the left." There are often (or quite often) longish articles on poets. Here's a link that shows some of what's done there:
http://www.thenation.com/section/poetry
The Nation also publishes poems--one a week, as I recall--although I haven't much liked the selection lately.
But the lack of poetry in newspapers and most general interest magazines these days, well, it's appalling.
And yes, that Manhattan Institute critique was very biased, I have to agree.
As for POL overall, whatever the choices of poems, kids learning poems is a good thing. I have to add, though, that I wonder how much poetry is actually being taught in schools. I mean, really read and discussed and thought about--and written. I do my tiny bit where I teach. And I teach all forms, and have the kids write in form. But I'm not sure that's typical... I'd be curious to know...
Charlotte