Slate's Bizbox
dialogues: E-mail debates of newsworthy topics.

Is Washington Washed Up?

dialogues
entries
123456
from: David Brooks
to: Michael Elliott

Posted Friday, Feb. 25, 2000, at 3:30 AM ET

There have been two strands to our discussion. First, is politics in decline? Second, is Washington dull? Now that we're at the end of our little symposium, I'm more convinced than ever that both those propositions are false.

First, on politics. As I'm sure you know, people outside the Beltway are incredibly out of touch with reality. Only us Potomac-fever types have our fingers on the pulse. And one of the things we're talking about is that while politics has indeed been small-scale since the Cold War, there has also been a turnout explosion in one primary state after another. More people turned out to vote in the Michigan Republican primary than ever before. In South Carolina, twice as many people turned out as last time. As we who work within a mile of the White House like to say, "there's something happening out there." It may not be a Teddy Roosevelt mobilization, as you say, but isn't it possible that just as in 1900, and just as in 1960, people are moving up the hierarchy of needs? The pocketbook issues are not as pressing, so they are looking for a little idealism. It's possible that politics is about to get interesting in unexpected ways.

Second, on the alleged dullness of Washington. The key to our disagreement on this score is over whether there is non-political life outside of Washington. One lousy Shakespeare theater. The Kennedy Center, which, it's true, I haven't been to in about six months (I have three small kids). But it's outdated to think that Washington is anything like the town it was even a decade ago. What is the key to our age? It is that we live in an economy that, to an unprecedented extent, rewards education with money (this is one of the conditions I describe in my book, which you've kindly allowed me to drag into the discussion). What is Washington? The most highly educated metropolitan area in America. And I'm not only talking about lawyers, activists, and think-tankers. They are just a tiny fraction. There is the National Institutes of Health, which sprouts off biotech firms and the genome mappers. There is the Defense Department, which sprouts off technology companies of all shapes and sizes. That, in turn, has created a nucleus of tech geeks, who can hop from AOL to one of the other tech firms and back again. There are market-research firms that rely on brainpower, such as Claritas, telecom firms such as MCI, and squads of consultants from Arthur Andersen and such.

When you get such a concentration of highly educated people, you get culture. It isn't so much traditional downtown culture—though there is much of that. We're also seeing a sprouting of suburban culture of the sort totally unknown in places like London and Paris. Montgomery and Fairfax counties are dotted with new-style suburbs that are sophisticated and interesting.

Moreover, this highly cultivated population is reproducing itself. There are public schools in the suburbs where the average SAT scores are over 600 in both verbal and math. And these public schools are not even the magnet schools. In those schools, the average SAT score is over 700. These smart kids are going to thrive, and many of them will remain in Washington. Realtors tell me that you used to notice when administrations changed because there was more action in the real-estate market. Now the political world is such a small part of the economy that political cycles make no difference.

Washington, as I said, is already one of the richest areas in the country and one of the brainiest. Put money and brains together and you will get more culture.

Will it be like Paris and London at their peaks? Maybe not. America has never been structured that way. Will it be as exciting and powerful as it was in the 1950s and 1960s? Easily. Remember, Washington wasn't as central then as we sometimes imagine. Think back to the 1950s. Do you think Washington or do you think suburbs? Think of the 1960s: Washington or Woodstock? Think of the 1970s: Washington or feminism? I'd say that in each decade, even at the height of the Cold War, cultural change was at least as important as or more important than political change. People like your politicians who were obsessed with politics were wackos, then just as now.

Finally, I return to the point I started with, on which I think we agree. Private commercial life is limited. People who have been successful tend to look to public life for meaning. I just did a story on a guy named Dan Snyder, who owns the Washington Redskins. He's all of 35, but he lost interest in his direct-mail firm and just sold it for about $2 billion. He found meaning in owning the Redskins, which is practically a public office in Washington.

I've long admired your writing, and it's been a pleasure to commune with you. When you're not hopping about the globe, maybe we could explore the new Washington, or as I prefer to see it, the current Rome and the future Athens.

dialogues
entries
123456
from: David Brooks
to: Michael Elliott

Posted Friday, Feb. 25, 2000, at 3:30 AM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Michael Elliott is the editor of Newsweek International. This week they debate whether Washington, D.C., has lost its vitality. David Brooks is senior editor of the Weekly Standard and author of Bobos in Paradise.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Highlights from The Fray (to be read after the week's most recent Dialogue entry):


Watch the impeachment hearings--why? So we can see your dinner party guests grandstanding in front of an empty Congress (not even their peers were interested enough to watch them,) so that they can earn a place in history? No one believes that what goes on on the floor of Congress makes a damn bit of difference. It's the closed door deals and back alley bargains where the real things get done. Sometimes I can't believe it when I actually see the evidence of the absolute self focus. When you write next at least consider the fact that there are people in these towns other than your mirror images.

I don't think that the question of Washington's vitality is a narrow question, but I certainly think that this particular debate is a limited one, which could only happen between white men. People live in those cities. They do not just move to them as eager young or not-quite-middle-aged men hoping to make their mark on the world. They live and struggle and punch in at 9 and punch out at 5 and make widgets and have barbecues on the weekends and vote for the city council and stand up in front of the schoolboard and drink in front of the local bodega and save to buy a house in a neighborhood that you probably consider fringe. And they hope to thrive or maybe just exist. The Washington you lament, one where a gaggle of elite or ambitious white men actually believed that we believed them to be the best of us, yes, that Washington is over.

--Lila

(To reply, click here.)


The current prosperity gives us the illusion that Washington does not matter any more. But I have seen no reduction in Washington's powers or influence. Instead, the influence takes up new forms. Abroad it is economic and diplomatic, not so much military. At home it is subtle coercion, as opposed to outright mandates. That is why more and more lobbyists have to spend more and more money to buy less and less influence. Adjusted for inflation, a dollar today in Washington is worth less than a dollar 10 years ago. So, as the rest of the world has grown more sophisticated, so has Washington.

--Van

(To reply, click here.)


Washington is still a prize. You talk of past leaders who came from wealthy families to lead this country. Well, right now we have a heated primary because George W comes from a wealthy family: he was able to accumulate $70,000,000 just for five races in the primary. Sounds like it still has a lot of value and relevance to the ruling class.

--T.V.H.

(To reply, click here.)


We live in an age of rapidly advancing technology. So why do we as a country persist in our 18th century mode of operation? Delegates to the Continental Congress had no alternative to convening in one place to conduct business. Today, the Internet and beyond provide us with the ability to keep our representatives at home--in offices in our communities where we as citizens may drop in and converse. They could line item vote via videoconference link. No more hiding controversial or porky items within the confines of 1,000 page bills whose final draft arrives on the floor barely minutes before the vote. Imagine the money that could be saved keeping representatives and their entourage at home. Imagine the reduction in wasteful spending. Imagine renewing the people's trust in federal government.

--MB

(To reply, click here.)

(2/23)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Over the Line
Harold Ford Jr. | I know what it's like to be smeared by your opponent.
: The Positive in Negative Ads
PLUS » Milbank: The President's Lullaby