Washington

by Meg Greenfield

Narrated in Greenfield's unforgettable voice, created in secret before her death in 1999, hidden from almost all of her friends and family, Washington is an exploration of a subculture that is both fabled and notorious. Like an anthropologist, Greenfield uses her famous wit, her eye for detail, and her understanding of how political people behave to show us why so many Americans hate Washington, D.C. - and how some who live there manage, despite all the obstacles, to do some good.
Greenfield identifies the principal species in the Washington subculture, using terms that will immediately become part of our political language - the good child, the head kid, the prodigy, the protege, the maverick, the image-maker. She shows us the Washington history she saw close-up - the hostility to professional women, the fall of the Southern oligarchy, eight Presidents (John Kennedy to Bill Clinton) and some surprising heroes.
Washington is a primer for those who wonder what life inside the capital is really like. It is also a window on the extraordinary, elusive woman who wrote it. Adorned with anecdotes and observations from her forty years near the center of power, the book shows us that, while functioning as one of the leading journalists of her time, Meg Greenfield managed to remain a human being.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Biography, Memoir, Journalism, Dc Comics, History

344 pages, Hardcover

First published April 1, 2001

Reviews

[Jeff Clausen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Written by a columnist of great renown and intellect, this was as much inside-the-beltway as I’ll need for at least 6 months. She knows of what she speaks and also seems to know everyone in town. I guess that was her job, but I found that I wasn’t quite as interested in all the details of how power is shared or stolen, how good people can be bad actors, and vice-versa. She has lots of generalities on hand, but it’s the examples here and there that make the page come alive when actual names are in play. Ditto with her own biographical and anecdotal stories, which are the best parts of the book. She campaigned for Adlai, covered Jack, Lyndon, and on, and knew and interviewed all the bigwigs for decades. There’s the gold in this book.

[Vince M · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Princes appear to me to be fools. Houses of Commons and Houses of Lords appear to me to be fools; they seem to me to be something Else besides Human Life" - William Blake (1757-1827)

To succeed in Washington, DC is to acclimate. To sink below, to disassociate public and private lives, to toss integrity to the wayside. One "inhales the zeitgeist of the place" and is never the same.

Meg Greenfield's friends say she remained pure. She resisted a total Washingtonization, that moral and psychological debasement of identity, retaining some shred of humanity during her decades-long tenure at the Washington Post. Yet Meg succeeded, and she admits as such. She acclimated.

But who would talk to a journalist with an impeccable moral compass? Survival comes at the cost of playing ball.

"What is different about our time is that most of the protective veils have been ripped off while the performers are still on stage."

This book is an anthropological study of the inhabitants of the Washington Zoo, the governmental enclosure of a class of hybrid creatures built to weather scrutiny in the pursuit of personal gain.

If only Meg could have seen how low journalistic integrity has fallen in the 21st Century...

-------------------------------------

Quick Reaction Thoughts:

I don't think this was the right time for me to read this book. Despite Greenfield's steadfast attachment to retaining human qualities amidst the muck of DC politics, she admits that one, especially a woman in the mid-20th Century, had to adapt to survive, and there remains a wistfulness of sentiment for that crooked landscape that I have grown to increasingly despise in the past year or so.

This isn't Greenfield's fault, though I did find the subject matter a bit obscure and vague. Apparently the final planned chapter (unfinished due to Greenfield's death via cancer in 1999) was supposed to focus more on the personal relationships that Meg had in the city, which I definitely would have found endearing and more compelling than the prior chapters (which were more of an anthropological view of Washington).

I think I might enjoy this more on reread, at a time when I would not be so jaded toward politics.

[Lora Shouse · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m only giving this book 4 stars because I find the subject – which is mostly politics - kind of boring. But that does not mean it was not well written. In fact, given the topic, I found it highly entertaining.

The author, Meg Greenfield, was for many years editorial page editor of the Washington Post, and before that she was a reporter in Washington for almost as many more. So she knew the movers and shakers in Washington as probably few other people knew them. In this book, she analyses what made them tick and comments on the ongoing changes (not necessarily for the better) in the Washington community. She also has some pithy comments on the relationship between reporters and the people they cover. One observation she makes here is that, while there is a lot of ethical angst over whether some reporters are too close to the people they report on, therefore likely to slant their stories more favorably to their friends, she sees the more worrisome problem as being that other reporters harbor an “intractable antipathy” to some people and causes.

I particularly liked her analogy of the Washington political hierarchy to high school in several aspects.

She also shares several personal anecdotes from her years in Washington meeting with the great and not-so-great.

This was a library book.

[Charlotte · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved it. Love Meg.

[Brian Wilcox · Rating 2 out of 5]

An interesting but somewhat dated look at Washington politics and political journalism. It's an interesting look back by a thoughtful observer of both politics and journalism, but both worlds are changing so fast that the book feels like history. To her credit, Greenfield foresees many of the current trends in both federal politics and journalism.

[JoEllen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Finished reading this while visiting D.C. on vacation, during a government shutdown. Perfect timing! Insightful and witty, she pulls no punches and is respectful at the same time. Comparing politics in the Capitol to positioning in high school? Spot on and hilarious.

[Michelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm so happy I came across this book in a thrift store. If you liked her editorials this book is more of the same, just put into the framework of her professional life rather than responding to the events of the week.

[Theingi Lynn · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good book for Washington based journalists

It would be a good book for someone who is pursuing journalism in Washington. The pace is a bit slow most of the time for someone who isn’t very familiar with American politicians in the past.

[Margie · Rating 2 out of 5]

I found it a bit dull and repetitive.

[Ginger Heskett]

I registered a book at BookCrossing.com!
http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/14337719

[Hubert · Rating 1 out of 5]

Despite the author's credentials as editorial page editor for the Washington Post, and her detailed observation of the scene of politicos in Washington D.C., this book was actually quite difficult to read. The writing comes off as rather smug, inaccessible, and not particularly engaging.

Her main point is that Washington is an insular place, full of social expectation and proprieties (early on in the book she compares it to a high school), and that journalists were to abide by particular expectations; though subjects were often seen as overly image-conscious as well. Her segments on what it meant to be a Washington spouse (read wife) seem dated, and certainly one hopes that gender power has been less imbalanced since her time.

I'd wished that the book were written with more rhetorical directness and less obfuscation.

[Jean · Rating 3 out of 5]

At first it seems dated, but one realizes that her insight into what makes Washington work is actually still true.
Her Washington shows the precursors of what it has turned into today. Worthwhile reading.

[Jennifer Coffey · Rating 2 out of 5]

Meh... beautiful prose (in places). It's written from such a stand off-ish position that there's no connection or intriguing details. Her companion of DC to a highly dysfunctional high school is spot on, but she tried to make a whole book out of that analogy, and it's too drawn out.

[Kirk Bado · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good ruminations on recent pre-social media Washington. Found a copy of her BMOC essay and sent it to my college poli sci professors.

[Olivier Lepetit · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite a challenging read for someone who is not up close and personal with American politics. The tone is accurate with regards to politics and some statements could fit right in With European politicians. Fortunately the anecdotes are numerous enough to want to keep on reading. If you study politics, this may be worthwhile to read, otherwise, pass it.

[Sally · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great voice and great history going back five presidents. Amazing how she talked about the culture of Washington being poisoned by the lack of civility and the immediacy of information long before FB and Twitter. She's willing to criticize her own complacency in the old system, as well.

[Michelle · Rating 2 out of 5]

May 2003 Book Club Selection

[Matt Evans · Rating 4 out of 5]

Washington = high school. This is more profound an equation than first glance might indicate. Ms. Greenfield wrote for Newsweek and Washington Post. I love Newsweek.

[Kate · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent inside Washington book.

[Brendan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A brisk and merciless vivisection of the titular city's political class. The author endears by not sparing herself.

[Milt · Rating 4 out of 5]

dbg

[Jossalyn]

for westridge alum book club 3/03;

[Matthew · Rating 3 out of 5]

great look at DC. too bad she never finished it.

[Timothy R. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good anecdotes, just too many of them.