What Washingtonians Claim to Read
Tevi Troy ·
July 5, 2011 at 9:57pm
I argue in the latest Washingtonian that Washingtonians don't necessarily read the books they say they read. Books by high-profile writers are digested, discussed, referenced, and even shape policy, but often remain largely unread. Examples of this phenomenon that I identified in the piece include: The End of History and the Last Man, by Francis Fukuyama; Team of Rivals, by Doris Kearns Goodwin; Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, by Robert D. Putnam; The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, by Paul Kennedy; and almost anything by Bob Woodward. Any recommendations from Ricochet readers of books that should also make the list?
- Comment (20)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
May '10
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel P. Huntington.
Transcripts of the Rush Limbaugh show. They are all familiar with what he actually says. No, really!
The Constitution.
Aug '10
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
Anything by Malcolm Gladwell.
Sep '10
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
How 'bout the Declaration of Independence along with the U.S. Constitution. Most people on capital hill seem to be ignorant of their contents.
The Federalist by Madison, Hamilton and Jay.
Anything by Harry Jaffa.
Aug '10
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
I mentioned it in one of the recent book threads, but I'd like to nominate The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb for that list. Exhibit A to prove no one in DC read it is the Dodd-Frank finance reform bill.
If we can pick older books, I'll toss in The Bell Curve and The Tipping Point again.
Jul '10
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
The Way the World Works by Jude Wanniski
Free to Choose by Milton Friedman
Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville
The Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek
For starters...
Jun '10
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
Books they don't read but should: (These are are conservative classics). Richard Weaver's Ideas Have Consequences, von Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, Frank Meyer's In Defense of Freedom and other Essays, Tom Sowell's A Conflict of Visions (though I could name several more of his books they should read as well).
Jan '11
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
Sometimes they may read a book but not grasp what the book really says. I had that experience recently with the Bob Woodward book, Obama's Wars.
I think even Woodward tried to spin it as a compliment to the president, but if you actually read it, it's anything but. Robert Gibbs said that the book showed that "... the President shepherded through a process, again, that was thoughtful and deliberate and focused to come up with what was our best chance at success."
I read it. It was a completely dysfunctional process. None of them trusted each other. The spin was that Obama led a thoughtful process ... what a joke! At the end of the process, Obama ignored everything the military said and imposed a self-serving political plan ...
May '11
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
C-Span has a feature called "What are you reading this summer?" Senator Bernie Sanders announced he was reading his book that he wrote about one of his speeches. Narcissistic? I wonder if he's less annoying in print? At least somebody is reading his book.
Sep '10
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
Charles Murray's "Losing Ground"; Bernard Bailyn's "Ideological Origins of the American Revoultion" or his "Faces of Revolution".
Apr '11
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
Jul '10
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
As I recall, the film Born Yesterday skewered D.C. talking heads for yapping about de Tocqueville's Democracy in America without reading it.
But, I'm not that picky. I'd settle for the hotshots reading the legislation that they "write."
Sep '10
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
I remember a story told by Michael Kinsley: when he was editor of The New Republic, he and a friend went to bookstores in Georgetown and put little slips of paper in copies of a book with intellectual pretensions that "everyone in DC is reading."
The slips of paper, which they inserted somewhere near the middle of the books, said something like this: "If you find this note, send it to Michael Kinsley at The New Republic with your return address, and you will receive $5."
He didn't have to pay out a dime.
Edit: I see that Tevi Troy mentions this in his article in the Washingtonian. I should have read his article first!
Edited on July 6, 2011 at 5:11amSep '10
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
I believe Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind fit into the category "heard of it, yes I'm conservative. No, I haven't read it."
Edited on July 6, 2011 at 7:06amApr '11
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
I remember attending a dinner party at a doctor's I was working for one evening, and some mention was made of Jaques Barzun's From Dawn to Decadence. This followed:
"Oh. That was fantastic!"
"I loved it too! Wasn't it great?"
"Terrific; but I didn't finish it."
"Me neither. It was just too dense."
"Well, I guess I won't have to bother with that."
Mar '11
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
Tevi,
That people claim to read books they haven't actually read is extremely common, and extremely annoying. Metropolitan skewers this tend, especially among the self-satisfied young.
But is it more concerning that people claim to have read things that they haven't, or that they have actually read the pop-intelligentsia like Gladwell and nothing else?
That is: more often than not, these people haven't actually read through anything worth reading. Their universe revolves around superficial conceptions and half-thought through notions which are provocative but easy to digest; ideas that fit on an index card and are great for cocktail party conversations, but are very simple, or, worse, democratized and popularized ideas that originally stemmed from profound writers but have become disfigured.
Jul '10
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
Maybe it's the onset of Alzheimer's. He shouldn't need to read a book that he himself wrote about something he himself said...
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
Thanks to all for the good suggestions for the not read list. I particularly liked Aaron Miller's line about the Rush Limbaugh show. Dogsbody's comment, which proved he hadn't read the article, was classic. Points for the self-correction, though. Waynester is assuming a lot if he thinks that Sanders wrote all of the speeches on which his book was based.
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
I did read the Woodward book, and I agree that it was not complimentary towards the White House decision-making process. The fact that people use it to praise the White House is further proof of my thesis.
KC Mulville: Sometimes they may read a book but not grasp what the book really says. I had that experience recently with the Bob Woodward book, Obama's Wars.
I think even Woodward tried to spin it as a compliment to the president, but if you actually read it, it's anything but. Robert Gibbs said that the book showed that "... the President shepherded through a process, again, that was thoughtful and deliberate and focused to come up with what was our best chance at success."
I read it. It was a completely dysfunctional process. None of them trusted each other. The spin was that Obama led a thoughtful process ... what a joke! At the end of the process, Obama ignored everything the military said and imposed a self-serving political plan ... · Jul 5 at 2:50pm
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
Born Yesterday is a great example. I wish I had thought of it when writing the piece.
Palaeologus: As I recall, the film Born Yesterday skewered D.C. talking heads for yapping about de Tocqueville's Democracy in America without reading it.
But, I'm not that picky. I'd settle for the hotshots reading the legislation that they "write." · Jul 5 at 7:14pm
Re: What Washingtonians Claim to Read
You raise some excellent points, and I love Tom Thompson's line in Metropolitan: "I don't read novels. I prefer good literary criticism." I was writing about a unique to DC phenomenon, in which conventional wisdom or, worse, policy is set by books that people have not read.
Crow's Nest: Tevi,
That people claim to read books they haven't actually read is extremely common, and extremely annoying. Metropolitan skewers this tend, especially among the self-satisfied young.
But is it more concerning that people claim to have read things that they haven't, or that they have actually read the pop-intelligentsia like Gladwell and nothing else?
That is: more often than not, these people haven't actually read through anything worth reading. Their universe revolves around superficial conceptions and half-thought through notions which are provocative but easy to digest; ideas that fit on an index card and are great for cocktail party conversations, but are very simple, or, worse, democratized and popularized ideas that originally stemmed from profound writers but have become disfigured. · Jul 6 at 2:44am