WASHINGTON, D.C.—“I never wanted this job,” Dana Gioia says of his post as chairman of the National Endowment of the Arts, in a deep, measured baritone. “I came to this job reluctantly, but somebody needed to rebuild the NEA, and unfortunately, it was me.”

Gioia, 57, an acclaimed poet and critic and the former vice president of marketing at General Foods Corporation, only agreed to the position after President Bush’s first appointment, Michael Hammond, died a week after taking office in early 2002. But by all accounts, Gioia has worked miracles within the endowment, bringing it back from the funding and reputation lows resulting from the culture wars of the 1990s. In six years, he’s increased the budget from $115 million to $145 million and not only steered clear of controversy but also courted allies in unlikely places — and in both parties.

The hallmark of the new initiatives launched under his leadership has been their reach. Shakespeare in American Communities, launched in 2003, has brought live performances to all 50 states (employing thousands of actors in the process), and the Big Read, introduced in 2004, is the largest literacy program in U.S. history aside from the WWII-era Armed Services Editions, with 21,000 partner institutions. Operation Homecoming has provided writing workshops to 6,000 U.S. soldiers and their spouses since 2004.

In September, Gioia announced that he is stepping down from his position in January — right around when Bush leaves office — to take a part-time position at the Aspen Institute and, more important, return to writing. ARTINFO spoke with him about bipartisanship, why Americans don’t appreciate the arts, and making up with the muse.

You told the New York Times that when you joined in 2002, the NEA was a “wounded institution.” And some people have said you “saved” it.

We’ve been very successful in the last six years in rebuilding the NEA. It’s now an institution that has the good opinion of Congress, the press, and the general public. Most important, we’ve rebuilt it without lowering the standards. We now reach millions of people with programs of the highest quality. And, of course, our budget has grown.

One thing you’ve done is reach out to the Departments of Justice, Defense, and State. What was your motivation?

We were able to get funds from other federal institutions that allowed us to create new programs above and beyond our appropriations. The Department of Defense gave us a million dollars, which we invested in theater to provide for Shakespeare companies visiting military bases and neighboring schools. The Department of Justice provides for after-school theater programs for kids in the poorest neighborhoods in the United States. The State Department has helped us fund new international cultural exchanges. These partnerships not only broaden our reach; they also give us credibility with different sections of society. Six years ago, the NEA was a very isolated institution.

When you came in, you didn’t have any experience in government, right?

Thank God no. For 15 years, I worked in corporate America and wrote at night. Then, in 1992, I quit, and for the next 12 years I was a freelance writer. I wrote poetry and reviewed books and music. I also did arts commentary for BBC Radio. So actually my profession before coming to the NEA was poet and critic — a veritable bohemian!

I can’t imagine coming into the kind of bureaucracy that you must have without any experience and doing as well as you have.

My bizarre background offered certain advantages. As a poet, I understood art from the inside. As a critic, I appreciated the importance of communicating well to the public. And as a former businessman, I understood how to get things done in organizations and create productive partnerships.

When I came to Washington, many of my artist friends in California and New York told me to “fight the good fight.” I felt that fighting was the wrong metaphor. Almost everyone in the United States wants art in their schools and in their communities. I looked at my job as reconciliation — finding ways to make groups, who had been fighting one another, realize that they had common goals. We needed to create a new public consensus to support arts and arts education.