Height of Power: The Washington Fiefdom Looms Larger Than Ever


For more than two centuries, it has been a wannabe among the great world capitals. But now, Washington is finally ready for its close-up.

No longer a jumped-up Canberra or, worse, Sacramento, it seems about to emerge as Pyongyang on the Potomac, the undisputed center of national power and influence. As a new president takes over the White House, the United States' capacity for centralization has arguably never been greater. But it's neither Barack Obama's charm nor his intentions that are driving the centrifocal process that's concentrating authority in the capital city. It's the unprecedented collapse of rival centers of power.

This is most obvious in economic affairs, an area in which the nation's great regions have previously enjoyed significant autonomy. But already the dukes of Wall Street and Detroit have submitted their papers to Washington for vassalage. Soon many other industries, from high-tech to agriculture and energy, will become subject to a Kremlin full of special czars. Even the most haughty boyar may have to genuflect to official orthodoxy on everything from social equity to sanctioned science.

At the same time, the notion of decentralized political power – the linchpin of federalism – is unraveling. Today, once proudly independent – even defiant – states, counties and cities sit on the verge of insolvency. New York and California, two megastates, face record deficits. From California to the Carolinas, local potentates with no power to print their own money will be forced to kiss Washington's ring.

Americans may still possess what the 19th-century historian Frederick Jackson Turner described as "an antipathy to control," but lately, they seem willing to submit themselves to an unprecedented dose of it. A financial collapse driven by unrestrained private excess – falling, ironically, on the supposedly anti-Washington Republicans' watch – seems to have transformed federal government cooking into the new comfort food.

To foreigners, this concentration of power might seem the quintessence of normalcy. As the sociologist E. Digby Baltzell wrote in 1964, elites have dominated and shaped the world's great cosmopolitan centers – from Athens to Rome to Baghdad – throughout history. In modern times, capital cities such as London, Paris, Moscow, Berlin and Tokyo have not only ruled their countries but have also largely defined them. In all these countries (with the exception of Germany, which was divided during the Cold War), publishing, media, the arts and corporate and political power are all concentrated in the same place. Paris is the undisputed global face of France just as London is of Great Britain or Tokyo is of Japan.

Although each had their merchant classes, these cities were strongly hierarchical, governed by those closest by blood or affiliation to the ruling family and populated largely by their servants. In contrast, Baltzell observed, U.S. cities such as New York have been "heterogeneous from top to bottom." Their power came not from the government or the church but from trade, the production of goods and scientific innovations, as well as the peddling of ideas and culture.

But Washington has always occupied a unique and somewhat incongruous niche among U.S. cities. It came into being not because of the economic logic of its location, but because it was a convenient compromise between North and South. It never developed into a center of commerce or manufacturing. Nor was it meant to be a fortress. Instead, it was designed for one specific purpose: to house the business of governance.

Pierre Charles L'Enfant, the French-born classicist and civil engineer who developed the plan for the city, envisioned a majestic capital that would "leave to posterity a grand idea of the patriotic interest," as he wrote in 1791. Yet for most of its history, Washington failed to measure up to the standards of European or Asian capitals. In January 1815, a South Carolina congressman described the capital to his wife as a "city which so many are willing to come to and all so anxious to leave."

This lowly status stemmed, to some extent, from what the historian James Sterling Young has defined as the "anti-power" ethos of early Americans. The revolutionary generation and its successors loathed the confluence of power and wealth that defined 19th-century London or Paris. A muddy outpost in the woods seemed more appropriate to republican ideals.

Even as other American cities, such as New York and Baltimore, expanded rapidly, Washington grew slowly, at a rate well below the national average. Bold predictions that the city would boast a population of 160,000 by the 1830s fell far short. Instead, it had barely reached 45,000 people, including more than 6,000 slaves. It remained eerily bereft of all the things that make cities vital – thriving commerce, a busy port, decent eateries and distinguished shops. Visiting the city in 1842, Charles Dickens marveled at a city of "spacious avenues that begin in nothing and lead nowhere."

To some observers, such as Alexis de Tocqueville, Washington's relative decrepitude reflected one of the glories of the young republic. The fact that the country had "no metropolis" that dominated it from the center struck the young noble, on his visit to America in the early 1830s, as "one of the first causes of the maintenance of Republican institutions."

Washington's status improved only marginally in the next century, even as other brilliant centers of power, culture and commerce emerged on the Eastern Seaboard and then across the Midwest and West. The rapid rise of New York was challenged in quick succession by the even more sudden emergence of Chicago in the industrial Midwest and San Francisco on the Gold Rush coast of California. Washington was surely the nerve center of politics, but commerce, culture and the vast majority of the media chose to concentrate elsewhere.

It would take enormous misfortune – the Depression – to provide Washington with its first great growth spurt. As the business empires of New York, Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland buckled and the New Deal took control of the economy, power shifted decisively to the capital. This expansion of influence continued with the onset of World War II and then during the Cold War.

The ensuing rise of the military and domestic bureaucracies transformed Washington from a small provincial city into a major metropolitan area. The greater economic shift from a predominantly manufacturing to a high-tech, information-centered economy also played to Washington's strengths. In his groundbreaking 1973 book The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, the sociologist Daniel Bell predicted that the country's prevailing "business civilization" would inevitably become dominated by the government bureaucracy. Corporations would eventually look to Washington's lead for regulatory standards, to sponsor research and make critical science-related decisions.

In the past half-century, this confluence of technology and bureaucracy has transformed Washington and its surrounding suburbs into the most dynamic large metropolitan economy in the Northeast. Between 1950 and 1996, the region's population expanded by roughly 150 percent, three or more times faster than other cities along the Boston-Washington corridor.

By the mid-1970s, Washington and its environs had also emerged as the richest region in the country. Since then, it has remained at or near the top of metropolitan areas in terms of both per capita income and level of education. Despite deplorable concentrations of poverty, particularly in the city proper, the region's average household incomes remain the highest in the country – nearly 50 percent above the national average. The percentage of adults with a bachelor's degree or higher, nearly 42 percent, surpasses even such brainy-seeming places as greater Boston, Seattle and Minneapolis.

The contrast between Washington and most of the United States has gradually become more pronounced. In good times and in bad, lawyers, lobbyists and other government retainers have continued to enrich themselves even as the Midwest industrial-belt cities have cratered and most others struggled to survive. "The vision of generations of liberals," admitted the New Republic in the mid-1970s, "has created a prosperous and preposterous city whose population is completely isolated from the people they represent and immune from the problems they are supposed to solve."

In today's crisis, the Washington area remains somewhat aloof, with the second-lowest unemployment rate among major metropolitan areas of more than 1 million. (Only Oklahoma City, largely insulated from both the financial and housing bubbles, is doing better, although collapsing energy prices could threaten its prosperity.) The rate of job growth, although slower, is still among the highest in the country, and unemployment is below the national average.

This disparity will grow in the coming years, as rival regions reel from the recession. Many once-powerful places are already losing their independence and allure. Wall Street, formerly the seat of privatized power, has been reduced to supplicant status. The fate of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "luxury city" will be determined not in deals with London, Dubai or Shanghai but by the U.S. Treasury. Similarly, the vast auto economy of the upper Midwest will take direction from congressional appropriations and whoever is named the new "car czar."

This loss of power in the provinces will broaden in scope during the coming months. Even proud Texas has lost its unique political influence. Its energy barons will now be forced to do the bidding of the lawmakers and regulators, instead of carrying them in their hip pockets.

Even industries that are well plugged in to the new Obama regime – such as venture capital and alternative energy – are facing financial ruin from the downturn in both markets and energy prices. To win new funding and subsidies for their next bubble, they'll increasingly rely not on their ballyhooed cleverness but on their pull with the White House, Congress and the new science apparat, under the green-oriented Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Obama's neo-Malthusian pick for White House science adviser, physicist John Holdren.

All this is bad news for much of America, but it should mean great business for many residents of greater Washington. Sudden interest in District pied-a-terres among investment bankers, venture capitalists, energy potentates and their hired help could do a lot to restore the battered condominium market. Office buildings in the District and surrounding environs can now expect a new rush of tenants, both from the private sector and the soon-to-be expanding federal bureaucracies.

The transfer of cultural power to Washington will also accelerate. After all, Washington is more than ever where the action is. Media outlets have already been shifting out of New York and other cities – the Atlantic Monthly moved from Boston to Washington in recent years, and USA Today, National Public Radio and XM Radio are headquartered in or near the capital. A city that, according to one 19th-century account, had a cuisine consisting largely of "hog and hominy grits" now boasts world-class restaurants, draws top-line chefs to its food scene and will continue to develop into a serious epicurean center. The area already ranks third in film and television production, largely because of a thriving news and documentary business, as embodied in National Geographic, the Public Broadcasting Service and the Discovery Channel.

Over time, those of us in the provinces may grow to resent all this, seeing in Washington's ascendancy something obtrusive, oppressive and contrary to the national ethos. But don't expect Washingtonians to care much. They'll be too busy running the country, when not chortling all the way to the bank.

This article originally appeared at the Washington Post.

Joel Kotkin is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University. He is author of The City: A Global History and is finishing a book on the American future.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Junped Up Canberra

As a denizen of Canberra ACT, or "Byzantium on Molonglo" as we like to call it, I don't know whether to be affronted or delighted by the comparison with Washington DC.

That malarial, fever-laden swamp that used to be there on the Potomac is gone, mostly. But at least Washington was never described as "A good Sheep Station..... spoilt."

increasing power of State Legislatures

Thank you very much Joel Kotkin.

I hope more people realize how much more harm the federal government may cause if State Legislatures are not better able to check the power of the federal government.

Our founders were worried about the federal government having too much power and that is why they wanted State Legislatures to choose United States Senators.

Our national debt was less than 1 trillion dollars on January 20, 1981. It took us more than 180 years to accumulate it. Our national debt is now more than 10 trillion dollars.

Does high inflation worry you?

Does it bother you when the President of the United States of America negotiates a trade agreement instead of Congress when Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution says Congress has the power

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"

Congress should eliminate the Federal Reserve or veto many of its decisions. If a majority of the United States Senate wants a Federal Reserve decision to be vetoed, it should be vetoed. If a majority of the United States House of Representatives wants a Federal Reserve decision to be vetoed, it should be vetoed.

Congress should consider backing our currency with gold, silver, and other commodities.

Do you want the federal government to cause less harm to state governments?

I would like an Amendment to the United States Constitution passed that allows each State to have at least 3 United States Senators and allows each State Legislature to choose at least 1 United States Senator. United States Senators chosen by State Legislatures may care more about the national debt, Wars, unfunded federal government mandates, Ambassadors, trade agreements, Treaties, and other topics important to State Legislatures.

I would like an Amendment to the United States Constitution adopted that allows State Legislatures to repeal federal laws, federal regulations, trade agreements, and Treaties. Unfunded federal government mandates might cause less harm to state governments.

I would like an Amendment to the United States Constitution adopted that allows State Legislatures to recall (fire) their Representatives to the United States House of Representatives, their United States Senators, the President of the United States of America, and the Vice President of the United States of America.

Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

People may want to support an Amendment to the United States Constitution that allows state governments to "coin Money" - make gold coins and silver coins. Many state governments may be better able to fund their operations. Many state governments may be able to reduce some of their taxes. Many state governments and their citizens may be able to worry less about high inflation caused by the federal government. More gold and silver may be found.

I hope people will read the United States Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and Caesar: A Biography by Christian Meier. I have other reading recommendations on my profile. I added 2 more on January 25, 2009.

I graduated from the University of New Hampshire in 1992 with a BA Degree in Political Science and a minor in Economics.

I ran for United States Senate in 2002.

My website is http://www.myspace.com/kennethstremsky


Ken Stremsky


Mr. Stremsky,
I have found your postings interesting and often spot on at this site. I have even ventured to your website.
I am a small business owner who happens to enjoy newgeography.com and probably have less scope in my cultural understanding than yourself.

What concerns me is the diminished credibility your posts have (for me at least) because you insist on listing your credentials every time you post. It is not my intent to diminish you, but as an outside observer I can not find any value in seeing your academic and political record every time I get to the end of one of your posts.

Thank you for your insights.

Thanks for the feedback uw and some questions

Thanks for your feedback uw

I will mention my education and political record less frequently when I post on newgeography.com.

What would you like the federal government to do to benefit small businesses? Taxes and other things

What would you like state governments to do?

Are there any websites you think I should check out?


Ken Stremsky


Mr. Stremsky,
The economy as a whole will need to improve before most small businesses regain momentum. Some businesses are benefitting from the
trials at hand, but most of the peers I meet and certainly many large corporations are bleeding from economic conditions in general.

Bailing out banks looks like a long dark tunnel to me. Letting them crash did not appeal to George, Ben and Hank and they had good advisors around them, but I hate to see good money going after bad in the months and years(?) ahead.

I worry about the nationalization of banking and other markets.

Taxation issues play a role in the challenges facing small business owners and I have always favored tax cuts, but this doesn't feel like the time. I have no old money, but I believe estate taxes may be one of the most damaging taxes if they inhibit business investment from the next generation.

Continuity on immigration is an issue. There is a large political force seeking looser immigration standards but the tough penalties for business employing "illegals" sends a mixed message.
If we grant non citizens health care from our tax receipts, we shouldn't be penalized for giving them honest work.

I'm a Reagan fan, and was involved in Haitian community work in south Florida when Pres Reagan gave amnesty to millions. Many thought it was incongruous with his values, but in retrospect I get it.

I'm too busy to pontificate any longer. You do the research with men like Mr. Kotkin and I'll work on being a good businessman.
Thank you for your respectful tone.


Thank you urbanwarrior for comments on estate taxes

Thanks for your comments about estate taxes and other things.

The federal government and state governments should NOT have estate taxes. Estate taxes discourage work, job creation, innovation, savings, and investments. Why work as hard as you are able to if your children and grandchildren are going to be punished? Why create jobs? Why innovate? Why take significant risks?

It is better to tax different types of consumption than to tax estates, savings, and investments.

I think a 2 percent national sales tax placed on most items other than food, shelter, health care, and education makes a lot of sense. If a national sales tax is adopted, the federal income tax on individuals and businesses should be reduced. Some of the money raised should go to state governments. Some of the money should be used to help fund Social Security and Medicare. A national sales tax may tax some of the money being earned from illegal drugs, other illegal activities, other parts our underground economy, and other things by illegal immigrants and others.

I would like the federal government and state governments to stop taxing interest from savings accounts, dividends, capital gains, and estates. More savings and investments may help many small businesses and large businesses survive the recession. More savings and investments may significantly increase economic growth over time. If unemployment significantly increases, many more people will not be paying into Social Security and Medicare. If unemployment significantly increases, many more people may need food stamps and Medicaid. If unemployment significantly increases, many state governments may take in less money from their sales taxes and income taxes.


Ken Stremsky

What's Next for DC?

Excellent observation, and one that most of us missed - the concentration of power in DC and the central government. Long gone the days of states' rights and the "Articles of Confederation" which, as a schoolboy, made me feel like the country was rather fragile, like a coat that is basted, or loosely handstitched, rather than sewn.

Perhaps due to globalization this evolutionary step is inevitable - survival of the fittest means the capital has to compete with the other nasties in the world to survive.

So what comes next? Already DC has the cultural trump card, the Smithsonian Institution. Will Washington acquire other institutions, like a Guggenheim or a Whitney South, or will the Hirshorn steal all the best shows? With the demise of the New York financial world, will Washington finance houses arise to dominate? Will Camp David become the new Versailles?

Richard Reep
Poolside Studios
Winter Park, FL


You sir, can write with the best.